Tesha Miller’s attorney cites Crown compliance concerns ahead of Klansman Gang trial

Defence attorney John Clarke yesterday raised concerns in the Home Circuit Court about the Crown’s failure to comply with court-mandated electronic disclosure procedures in the anti-gang trial involving Tesha Miller and 22 other alleged members of the Klansman Gang.

However, Justice Vinette Graham-Allen, known for her no-nonsense style, cut him off almost immediately and urged him to air his concerns quickly.

Clarke, who is representing Miller, rose to address what he described as the Crown’s continued non-compliance with Practice Direction No. 2 of 2024, which mandates disclosure of material electronically – with a full index to guide the defence.

“Hey, no bada go through that now, just tell me what the issue is, I have court five list to deal with,” the judge said, interrupting Clarke.

“Shorten it, what is the issue you are having with disclosure?” she asked.

“My Lady, just allow me to indicate ...,” he said, before the judge again interrupted him, saying, “No, mi naa go mek yuh chat, just tell me what your issue is. I have another court to go and preside over.”

Clarke then explained that he wants the court to ensure that the prosecution fully complies with the practice direction and that the index and material are disclosed.

Graham-Allen, in response, said the prosecution could reply. However, Clarke interjected, saying, “But, My Lady, you have to, here is why.”

“No, no, Mr Clarke, I have to nothing! Take a seat. Mr Prosecutor, please answer,” she instructed.

Clarke tried once more to assert that the matter was critical to a fair trial and that he needed to adequately represent his client.

The prosecutor indicated that three more persons are to join the matter, two of whom have not been positively identified by the witness, and that it would require more time to fully comply with the direction.

Clarke, however, indicated that he did not hear, but was quickly told by the judge, “I know you have to talk, but you talk already. I have another court to go and preside over. Please take your seat.”

She then turned to the matter of scheduling the next court date, but Clarke was unrelenting.

ABSENCE OF PROPER INDEX A HINDRANCE

He expressed that the absence of a proper index – despite multiple previous requests – was causing a great inconvenience to the defence lawyers in their preparation.

“We have been coming here for a very long time, and I have raised the matter on multiple occasions. I have asked for the index, which is a critical component of the case management process and is necessary for us to even start taking instructions in relation to this matter,” Clarke said.

“It can’t be sufficient after all this time, and I have been here at least 10 times,” he said, before the judge cut him off, while indicating the prosecutor would respond.

The prosecutor then acknowledged that it had not yet uploaded a fully compliant index, and requested three to four more weeks to finalise the document, particularly in light of plans to add three other accused persons to the case.

Clarke, in response, noted that the index can be amended.

Furthermore, he said that without an accurate index – including dates, times, and documents - the defence would remain in “complete ignorance” of new additions to disclosure folders, creating what he described as an “electronic nightmare”.

The judge, however, told him that case management includes discussion with both parties and that he should have discussed it with the Crown, but he indicated that he has already done so.

Clarke then pointed out that it was the judge’s duty to hear the defence’s concern, but the judge refused to yield more time and quickly turned to scheduling a July 22 date for the continuation of case management. A trial date was previously set for January 7 of next year.

The judge, however, made it clear that all parties must get their houses in order – and soon.

The matter is set to return to court on July 22, 2025 for continued case management, with the judge warning that the courtroom is not a space for delay tactics or “long talking”.

NO REPRESENTATION FOR HALL

Meanwhile, during yesterday’s sitting, attorney Everton Bird again informed the court that he had not been formally appointed as the legal representative for defendant Rolando Hall. Bird said he has not been put in a position to be contracted, and declined a legal aid offer to represent Hall.

The defendant, when asked why he has not settled his legal representation, said he has spoken with his family.

However, the judge told him, “You not going to hold up the case. You see when the case starts on the 7th of January next year, it a start, so we can’t have no hiccup to stop it.”

The trial stems from allegations that Miller led a criminal organisation – the Klansman Gang, ‘Tesha Faction’ – responsible for a slew of violent crimes across St Catherine between 2017 and 2022, including murder, attempted murder, robbery, and gun charges.

The 23 defendants are charged under the Criminal Justice (Suppression of Criminal Organizations) Act and appeared before the court on a voluntary bill of indictment issued by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com