Expert testifies seized weapon was fired during 2013 police fatal shooting

A government ballistics expert yesterday testified that one of the illegal firearms recovered at the scene of a fatal 2013 police shooting along Acadia Drive in St Andrew was discharged during the incident.

The expert said forensic analysis linked the weapon to one spent cartridge casing found at the location.

Forensic analysis also linked at least four of the 11 service pistols seized from the six lawmen involved in the incident to cartridge cases recovered at the scene.

The trial had previously heard that police recovered two firearms, an Acrus nine-millimetre pistol and a nine-millimetre Luger Cobra submachine gun, from the scene, which were later submitted for testing along with unexpended cartridges.

The weapons were recovered in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer on January 12, 2013.

Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and Constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch, who are contending that the men were killed during a shootout, are currently on trial for murder.

Giving detailed evidence in the Home Circuit Court, the expert,  a superintendent of police, said his examination of the ballistics and firearm evidence revealed that one of the recovered weapons, a nine-millimetre Luger Cobra, was positively linked to at least one cartridge casing recovered from the scene.

Referring to one of the submitted packages, which contained six nine-millimetre Luger cartridge cases, he stated that three were fired from one of the 11 service pistols submitted. One cartridge case was fired from the firearm marked as the submachine gun.

In another package containing fourteen 5.56 cartridge cases, all were associated with Colt rifles of the same brand. Six were fired from one Colt rifle, four from a second Colt rifle of a similar model, while the remaining cases were linked to a third Colt rifle of the same make. Two of the casings, however, contained insufficient detail for identification with a specific firearm.

The witness also told the court that he examined another package containing nine 5.56 cartridge cases but was only able to link three of them to one of the service pistols. He said four were fired from one firearm, but he could not identify the specific weapon, while two casings contained insufficient detail for a positive match.

In addition, a damaged bullet recovered from the scene was identified as 5.56 calibre, but the expert said it did not bear sufficient markings for comparison with any of the submitted firearms.

The witness further testified that all firearms taken from the six policemen were in good working condition and capable of discharging lethal ammunition. These included a combination of M16 rifles, Glock pistols, and a Browning pistol issued to members of the police team.

By contrast, the submachine gun recovered at the scene was found to be in poor condition. The expert noted that its serial number had been eroded, and the weapon showed signs of corrosion consistent with prolonged exposure to moisture. Despite this, he said it remained capable of firing live rounds. The grip of the weapon had also been wrapped in black electrical tape, suggesting prior damage or wear.

The witness explained that firearms purchased by the Government are submitted to the laboratory before issuance, where they are test-fired under controlled conditions. The resulting bullets and spent casings are retained as reference samples for future forensic comparison.

Meanwhile, during the proceedings, defence attorney Hugh Wildman strongly objected to the scope of the expert’s testimony.

Wildman argued that the witness, having been called as an expert, was improperly venturing into opinion evidence before the prosecution had laid the necessary factual foundation.

“There is nothing that this witness is proposing to testify to that has been tendered in court, nothing that has been established factually independent of him, which has to be done, and in the circumstances, he is not permitted to testify to any fact,” he submitted.

“He has testified that he received some things, and we submit that this is as far as he can go at this point in time,” he added.

In response, the prosecution said the witness was not being asked to give opinion evidence but was instead outlining standard forensic procedures.

Presiding judge Justice Sonia Bertram-Linton intervened, indicating that the court would allow the testimony to proceed until the witness completed listing the items examined.

However, she later stated that she had already ruled on the matter and would not revisit the issue.

Wildman, however, contended that no prior submission had been made on the point.

Follow The Gleaner on X 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.