On 14th March 2023, following a trial, Jerry Dossou was convicted of one count of Carrying a Firearm and one count of Carrying Ammunition. On 21st March 2023, he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. Dossou appealed his conviction on two grounds.
The Incident
On 27th August 2020, police officers Innocent and Louima were present in a marked police vehicle when Dossou drove off with two friends. The officers followed and signaled for Dossou's vehicle to stop, but it drove off erratically. Innocent claimed that when Dossou exited the vehicle, he pointed a firearm at the officers, prompting Innocent to shoot at Dossou, who then ran into the bushes. Louima corroborated that Dossou pointed a firearm at them.
Discovery of the Firearm
Approximately 20 hours after the incident, Inspector Diamond and others searched the area and found a black Smith & Wesson 9mm pistol in the bushes. The firearm was seized, and swabs were taken for DNA analysis by forensic analyst Jerome Remm.
The Trial
At trial, Remm's DNA analysis report found very strong support that Dossou and three unknown persons contributed to the mixed DNA profile on the firearm. The defense argued that Dossou did not have a firearm and was shot from behind while running away with only cannabis in his hand.
Grounds of Appeal
Dossou appealed on the grounds that: 1) The judge erred in allowing Jerome Remm's evidence due to inadequate disclosure, and 2) The judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding the defense case, inconsistencies in evidence, and the delay in finding the firearm.
Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction.
On the issue of the admission of the expert evidence of Jerome Remm, the court found that despite the late disclosure, the decision to allow Remm's evidence was not so wrong that it resulted in an unsafe verdict. The court found that the defense was able to cross-examine Remm and any prejudice could have been cured by an adjournment if requested.
On the issue of the jury directions, the court found that the learned judge adequately directed the jury on how to treat discrepancies in the evidence and the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The court found the summing up was fair and not fundamentally unbalanced against the appellant.
In summary, the court found no error in the admission of the expert evidence or in the jury directions that would warrant overturning the conviction.