Lawyer blasts gang trial evidence

Defence lawyer Kymani Brydson yesterday argued in the Clansman-One Don Gang trial that the prosecution's expert witnesses, including a ballistic expert, did not strengthen the Crown's case.

Brydson said the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt against his two clients, defendants Tomrick Taylor and Daniel McKenzie. The ballistic expert testified that a handgun that was reportedly recovered from the alleged bodyguard of reputed One Don gang leader Andre 'Blackman' Bryan featured in three of the 10 murders that have been 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 shoot-out with the police in Spanish Town, St Catherine. The witness had also testified that another recovered weapon, alleged to be part of the gang's system of guns, featured in two other murders for which alleged gang members were charged. The court had also heard that 11 firearms were used in 10 murders reportedly orchestrated by the gang and are directly linked to 35 shooting incidents. The witness had prepared a ballistic match report after analysing spent casings, firearms and bullet fragments which were recovered from the different crime scenes.

But Bryson said the witness sought to distance himself from the genesis of the ballistics which he analysed. This, he said, was evident from his utterance that he was assuming that the exhibits were taken from the places or scenes that they were said to be taken from. Brydson noted that "admission or concession" had significantly diminished the witness' evidence in assisting the Crown to prove that a gang existed. He further noted that the admission was a common thread from the other expert witnesses who had analysed evidence.

"That common pattern among from those objective witnesses is one of the inefficiencies that the prosecution has failed to remedy during this trial, "he said. Meanwhile, Brydson also argued that the prosecution has failed to bring any independent evidence to support the accounts of the two main witnesses, who are ex-gangsters. He also submitted that the Crown has failed to prove that a criminal organisation existed to which his clients were members and asked the court to find that the evidence led by the Crown was insufficient to show that they were involved in a gang.

His colleagues Denise Hinson and Cecile Griffiths-Ashton, during their addresses, chorused similar arguments. Hinson represents defendants Brian Morris and Michael Whitely while Griffiths-Ashton represents Carl Beech. The defence will continue making their closing arguments when the trial resumes today.