Prosecution draws blank with ballistic evidence in gang trial
Ballistic evidence presented during the Clansman-One Don Gang trial has failed to establish any link between the gang’s “system guns” and any of the 10 murders reportedly carried out by its alleged members.
A ballistic expert had testified that a handgun that was reportedly seized from the alleged bodyguard of reputed 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 shootout with the police in Spanish Town, St Catherine.
The expert witness, an assistant superintendent of police, had also testified that another confiscated gun, also alleged to be among the gang’s cache of weapons, featured in two other murders linked to the gang.
The court had also heard that 11 firearms were found to have been used in the 10 murders and that they are directly linked to 35 shooting incidents, which include at least 27 other murders.
The witness had prepared a ballistic match report after analysing spent casings, firearms, and bullet fragments recovered from the various crime scenes.
But Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, in concluding his summation on the ballistic evidence on Tuesday, said the expert’s evidence could not be accepted and did not advance the Crown’s case.
The judge had previously stated that only four of the incidents would be considered, as six had already failed.
However, he said that evidence could not be used to support two of the alleged murders, as there was no evidence to support the names of the deceased men, which were given by the expert witness.
The judge noted that on the indictment, the deceased men were referred to by different names and that there was no evidence by the Crown to support and substantiate those names. According to the judge, while the expert witness may have obtained the names during the course of his professional duties, the information would have been hearsay.
“The reliability of the information that he had was not established by any admissible evidence,” Justice Sykes said.
MISSING EVIDENCE
The judge also pointed out that the chain-of-custody evidence was missing as well as evidence establishing how the evidential material was obtained by the expert.
Pointing to the weapon that was reportedly taken from James, the judge highlighted that there was contradicting evidence from the police officers who were involved in the recovery, the ballistic report, and the officer who had submitted the weapon to the laboratory.
He said that based on the testimony of one of the officers involved in the recovery, James fired at least three rounds on two occasions.
At the same time, the judge said, the police who submitted the weapon said six rounds were in the magazine while the ballistic report indicated that the gun’s magazine could only accommodate seven rounds.
“The evidence did not disclose that the police officer saw Mr James reloading the magazine or changing the magazine,” the judge pointed out.
“So unreliability, in respect of that, started from the very circumstances of the recovery and what the Crown is asking of the court is to make sure that not only was the firearm recovered, but that it was recovered from Mr James in the circumstances that they had outlined.
“And unfortunately the court is unable to say with any degree of certainty that the firearm was recovered from him in the circumstance outlined,” the judge said.
Consequently, the judge said the assumption that the gun was also used in the double murder of a couple and arson in 2017 at New Nursery in St Catherine cannot be of any assistance to the Crown.
According to the judge, the closest that the Crown got to any chain of custody was with respect to evidence given by the officer, who testified to collecting spent casings from the double murder scene, packaging and labelling the material before submitting it to the laboratory. But the judge said there was no connection made between the expert and his retrieval of that evidence.
The judge noted that it was the expert witness who had assumed that the evidentiary materials were taken from the various crime scenes. Essentially, the judge said nothing was presented to establish any connection between the different pieces of evidence and various crime scenes or how the expert had accessed the materials.
Twenty-seven defendants are being tried on an indictment with 14 counts under the Criminal Justice (Suppression of Criminal Organizations) Act and the Firearms Act.
Justice Sykes will continue his summation on Thursday.