Judge urges defence to avoid delays in Clansman murder trial as over 90 witnesses still to testify

Justice Dale Palmer has again called on defence attorneys in the Clansman Gang murder trial to make better use of the court’s time by agreeing on matters that are not in dispute, warning that the refusal to do so is prolonging proceedings in a case with “some 90-odd” witnesses still to be called.

Speaking in the Home Circuit Court yesterday during the trial of alleged gang leader Tesha Miller and 24 others, Palmer ruled that a late objection filed by the defence to the admission of several ballistic certificates was valid, but used the opportunity to caution counsel about unnecessary delays.

The Crown had sought to admit 10 certificates under a statutory exception to the hearsay rule, relying on provisions that allow such documents to be entered into evidence without calling the expert, once proper notice is served.

Palmer said the purpose of the notice is threefold: to inform the defence of the prosecution’s intention to tender the certificate; to provide a copy of its contents; and to allow the defence an opportunity to object and have the expert available for cross-examination.

While noting that valid notice had been served, the judge said that although the defence’s objection was filed out of time, it was still made sufficiently early to alert the court and the prosecution.

“If the legislation explicitly says that the defendant may object, and the sole issue is that it is done out of time, but still in sufficient time to give the Crown and the court sufficient notice, I believe he or they ought to be allowed to take the objection,” Palmer ruled.

He therefore directed that the expert be made available for examination.

However, the judge expressed concern about what he described as a persistent refusal by counsel to agree on issues that are not contested.

“What is the point of insisting on all witnesses attending in person where there is no challenge to the evidence this particular witness is to give?” Palmer asked.

He noted that in some instances witnesses had been called and not a single question was put to them in cross-examination.

“The inference must be that no issue is taken with this witness,” he said, urging an “issue-focused approach” to the trial.

Palmer stressed that court time is a limited resource and that counsel, many of whom practise in multiple courts, can only be in one place at a time.

“The court time that is used to consider and admit things that are not disputed could be used to dispose of other matters,” he said.

The proceedings also saw defence attorney Shannon Clarke arguing that the manner in which the prosecution was calling witnesses had hampered effective cross-examination by the defence, contending that primary fact witnesses had not yet been called in relation to certain counts on the indictment.

She also highlighted that the Crown’s two main witnesses have not yet been called and that the defence has been given no timeline as to when they will be called.

Palmer, however, questioned the claim of prejudice, noting that defence counsel retains the right to seek leave to recall witnesses if necessary.

The trial continues.

- Tanesha Mundle

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.