Expert witnesses don’t prove Crown’s case – defence
Published:Thursday | July 28, 2022 | 12:12 AM
A defence lawyer in the Clansman-One Don Gang trial argued Wednesday that the prosecution’s expert witnesses, including the ballistic expert, did not strengthen the Crown’s case.
“The expert witnesses who should have been deemed or found to be objective witnesses did not advance the case any further,” Kymani Brydson said.
He made the argument while insisting that the prosecution had failed to establish its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt against his two clients, defendants Tomrick Taylor and Daniel McKenzie.
During the ballistic expert’s testimony, it was disclosed earlier in trial that a handgun that was reportedly recovered from the alleged bodyguard of reputed One Don gang leader Andre ‘Blackman’ Bryan featured in three of the 10 murders linked to the gang.
The handgun, a .45 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol, was reportedly taken from defendant Tareek ‘CJ’ James in November 2017 during a shoot-out with the police in Spanish Town, St Catherine.
The expert witness had also testified that another seized weapon, alleged to be among the gang’s cache of guns, featured in two other murders for which defendants had been charged.
The court had also heard that 11 firearms were found to have been used in the execution of 10 murders reportedly orchestrated by the gang and are directly linked to 35 shooting incidents, which include at least 27 other murders.
The witness had prepared a ballistic match report after analyzing spent casings, firearms, and bullet fragments that were recovered from various crime scenes.
But Brydson, during his closing argument Wednesday, said the expert witness had sought to distance himself from the genesis of the ballistics which he had analysed.
This, he said, was evident from his utterance that he was assuming that the exhibits that he had analysed were taken from the reported scenes.
Brydson noted that that “admission or concession” had significantly diminished the ballistic expert witness’ evidence in assisting the Crown to prove that a gang existed.
He further noted that the admission was a common thread from the other expert witnesses who had done analysis, including an expert from telecommunications firm FLOW who had also distanced himself from the source of the information.
“That common pattern among from those objective witnesses is one of the inefficiencies that the prosecution has failed to remedy during this trial,” he said.
In the meantime, the attorney also argued that the prosecution has failed to bring any independent evidence to support the accounts of the two main witnesses, who are self-confessed ex-gangsters.
He also submitted that the Crown has failed to prove his clients’ membership in any criminal organisation.
Brydson’s colleagues, Denise Hinson and Cecile Griffiths-Ashton, chorused similar arguments in their submissions.
They also asked the judge to find that the main witnesses were not credible.
Hinson represented defendants Brian Morris and Michael Whitely, while Griffiths-Ashton represented Carl Beech.
The defence will continue making closing arguments when the trial resumes Thursday.