People v. Frett
2011 WL 3325844
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2011Background
- Defendant Frett and a minor, John Southwell, abducted and murdered Gabriel Lemer in October 2008 on the Virgin Islands island of St. Thomas.
- Frett was unauthorized to possess a firearm; the firearm evidence linked to the crime was disputed at trial.
- Lemer’s vehicle was used after kidnapping; Frett and Southwell used Lemer’s credit card at multiple locations.
- Southwell pleaded guilty in September 2010 to lesser-included offenses and agreed to testify against Frett.
- During trial, Frett moved under Rules 29 and 33 to dismiss counts and overturn the conviction; the court denied some motions and later dismissed Counts Two, Four, and Six.
- The jury ultimately found Frett guilty on the remaining counts, and the court later granted a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal as to Counts Two, Four, and Six while denying a new-trial motion under Rule 33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts Two, Four, and Six support unauthorized firearm use during a crime of violence. | People argue evidence sufficed to prove operable firearm and nexus. | Frett contends no sufficient nexus and operability proven. | Judgment of acquittal for Counts Two, Four, Six granted. |
| Whether Frett is entitled to a new trial under Rule 33. | People oppose new trial; credibility issues resolved against Frett. | Arguments based on Second Statement and trial rulings merit new trial. | Rule 33 motion denied; no exceptional basis shown. |
| Whether the Second Statement was properly admissible for impeachment. | Second Statement suppressed but usable for impeachment per statute. | Suppression violated rights; but impeachment use permissible. | Second Statement admissible for impeachment under 14 V.I.C. § 19. |
| Whether the court's jury instructions on accomplice credibility were improper. | Instructions deemed sufficiently cautionary; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1941) (procedural rules vs. substantive rights; procedural limits remain valid)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (S. Ct. 2010) (federal rules govern procedure, not substantive state rights)
- United States v. Beverly, 99 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 1996) (testimony of victim can support firearm-use conviction despite lack of gun recovery)
- United States v. Blyden, 740 F. Supp. 376 (D.V.I. 1990) (VI firearm offenses require operability evidence; federal vs VI differences)