DPP: Case against Tesha wouldn’t make sense if ex-gangster didn’t testify

DIRECTOR OF Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn says the State’s case would have been “nonsense” if a judge did not allow an ex-gangster-turned-witness to testifyabout his history with Tesha Miller, who is challenging his conviction in a murder case.

She told the Court of Appeal yesterday that while “at first blush” it “may appear that the prejudicial effect is real and apparent”, the trial judge’s decision to allow prosecutors to question the witness about his background was supported by legal authorities.

The witness, among other things, testified to being present at a meeting where Miller ordered Andre ‘Blackman Bryan’ to kill Jamaica Urban Transit Company chairman Douglas Chambers. Bryan was freed of murder.

Miller, who is appealing his 2019 conviction as an accessory before the fact, has argued through his legal team that he did not get a fair trial.

“The prejudicial evidence led in this particular case was severely overwhelming, incurably wrong and unfair to the accused and that based on that, this court cannot be satisfied that at trial, no miscarriage of justice had occurred,” John Clarke, one of Miller’s lawyers, told the appeal court on Tuesday.

But the DPP has hit back, saying that the witness’ credibility was “the main issue” for the prosecution because of several factors.

The man was serving a ife sentence for murder before it was cut to 10 years after he entered a deal with the Crown to testify against Miller. He also admitted to being part of the Clansman gang he said was headed by Miller and that he was a killer.

“Without this background evidence, how would the witness and the Crown be able to explain … why was it that he went to a meeting with these guys and Miller? Why was it that he obeyed him to get these guns to give to Bryan and Brucky? Why was it that he formed this diversion group to distract people, which would facilitate Bryan and Brucky and the others being able to leave?” the DPP said, noting that without the context, the prosecution’s case “would have made no sense”.

“Why was it that we should believe him when he said he knew Miller? How did he come to know Miller? What was it he used to do for Miller? What was it about Miller’s status that would cause him, a self-confessed killer, to obey him?”

Trial judge Justice Georgiana Fraser told the jurors that the evidence of Miller “being a don” was put forward by the prosecution “to help you to understand other evidence in this case and to provide a setting for this incident as it would have been impossible to understand the event of this indictment without knowing this”.

The DPP said the judge was fair as she warned the jurors from using the evidence “for an inappropriate purpose”.

The defence’s argument has included denials from Miller that he knew the witness or that he was the leader of the Spanish Town-based Clansman gang.

The DPP also questioned how Miller’s legal team came to be of the view that the witness said Miller was responsible for the deaths of 13 members of his family.

She said there was nothing in the evidence to support that assertion and that the witness may have been directing blame at the gang, and further, that the point was not relevant and not pursued.

“In an excess of enthusiasm, perhaps it may have been my learned friends going with their feelings and perceptions who, somehow, annexed the concept of the 13 members of his family being dead and put it at the feet of their client,” Llewellyn said after pointing to the witness declaring that his motivation for testifying was because he was “fed up of what going on” and the deaths of his relatives.

Regarding the witness’ claim that the gang used extortion money to pay lawyers to defend members, Llewellyn noted that the response came after the prosecutor questioned the witness on the structure of the gang.

After an objection from Miller’s defence lawyer, Bert Samuels, the judge told the jurors to disregard the answer.

The DPP will continue her response today.