The Court of Appeals yesterday heard submissions on behalf of convicted Lagoon Park murderer Robert Blair Tucker and co-defendant James Alan (Spook) Dill who was convicted on a lesser charge of manslaughter.

The Lagoon Park murder trial concluded last year after a four-month-long trial in which Tucker received a life sentence for stabbing and killing American drug dealer Stanley Lee on July 1, 2001. (Spook) Dill was given a ten-year sentence for manslaughter while Terranz Smith was freed.

Yesterday, Tucker?s lawyer Larry Scott outlined three grounds for appeal to Appeals Court judges.

Firstly, Mr. Scott suggested that the statements made by Tucker to Police were ?flippant? remarks, meant as a joke, and could not therefore truly be regarded as a confession of guilt.

Mr. Scott said there was ?fear and oppression operating on the mind? of Tucker while giving his formal statement to Police, which made his statements involuntary.

?This was not the usual kind of oppression where he was taken down in a dark room and beaten about the head ? it was more subtle than that,? said Mr. Scott.

?A person under stress will behave in a totally irregular way,? he added.

However, Appeals Court President Edward Zacca questioned Mr. Scott?s logic, stating ?you can?t be oppressed and flippant at the same time?. ?Your submissions are merely submissions, not based on any evidence at all... what?s the evidence of stress? ? Mr. Justice Zacca asked. ?Where is the evidence that Police acted so unfairly??

Mr. Scott?s second grounds for appeal were based on the issue of Tucker?s alibi. He mentioned that during the trial, a Crown witness provided an alibi indicating that Tucker was not at the scene of the crime ? evidence which Tucker contradicts in his own statements.

Mr. Scott said it was the duty of the trial judge, Puisne Judge Norma Wade Miller, to give more direction to the jury regarding the conflicting evidence, especially since the burden of proof rests on the Crown.

But Appeals Court Justice Gerald Nazareth rejected this, stating: ?The jury has to reconcile these inconsistencies... it happens all the time.?

Mr. Scott?s third basis for appeal was based on the amount of time that Tucker was in custody before being formally charged, saying it resulted in a situation which was ?improper, oppressive, and unfair? to his client.

But Mr. Justice Zacca said given the serious nature of the charges, it would be unreasonable for Police to release Tucker. He added that the only reason Tucker had not yet been charged was because the investigation was ongoing and all the evidence had not yet come in.

After the lunch break, defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher appealed judgment against Dill on the grounds that he had also experienced ?oppression? by Police. She said there was a question whether Dill was intoxicated or impaired by drugs when he gave his statement, thus rendering it unreliable or involuntary.

And Ms Christopher also said that Dill was initially under the impression that Police were questioning him about drugs importation.

She said Dill had been ?misled? about the real intention of Police questioning, and said her client should have been informed that he was a suspect in a murder case.

If Dill had known he was a suspect, Ms Christopher suggested, he might have taken the questions ?more seriously? or maintained his right to remain silent.

Ms Christopher also took issue with the informal notes Police made prior to formal questioning, saying that these notes ?tainted? the formal statements since there had been no independent verification from Dill about the accuracy of those notes.

And she said that the informal statements were used as a ?device? to ?trap? him into making his formal statements.

However, Mr. Justice Zacca reminded Ms Christopher that Dill was ?convicted on his formal statements, not his informal statements?.

And Mr. Justice Stuart Smith added, ?unless the officer is cross-examining him on inconsistencies based on the informal statement, I don?t see what the issue is?.

The appeal continues this morning.