Prosecutor’s fixation on spent shell puzzles judge

THE murder trial of six policemen resumes today, with prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke expected to explain her fixation with a particular bullet spent casing.

High Court Judge Sonia Bertram-Linton started, since Friday, to press Pyke to explain her reasons for insisting on having a ballistics expert take a specific spent casing back to the Government Forensic Laboratory to obtain a reading from a computerised system. The expert witness is a superintendent from the lab who has close to 20 years’ experience as a ballistics analyst.

He was testifying in the Home Circuit Court murder trial of the cops. On trial for murder are Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch. Corporal Fullerton is also charged with making a false statement to the Independent Commission of Investigations.

They are being tried in relation to the January 12, 2013 shooting deaths of Matthew Lee, Ucliffe Dyer, and Mark Allen. The three men were killed during an alleged shoot-out with the police on Acadia Drive near its intersection with Evans Avenue in Barbican, St Andrew.

It is alleged that the men were travelling in a blue Mitsubishi Outlander motor vehicle when cops signalled the driver to stop. Reports were that the driver hesitated, but eventually stopped, at which point men alighted from the vehicle to challenge the police in a gun battle which led to the demise of Lee, Dyer, and Allen.

Two illegal firearms were seized, and a fourth man was said to have escaped.

Numerous spent casings were collected from the general scene and were sent to the lab for testing; however, 14 (5.56 mm) spent casings which were purported to have been found on the ground around the Outlander arrived at the lab as part of one envelope. The 14 spent casings were said to have come from the cops’ service weapons. Of the 14, there were 12 which were matched to three rifles said to have been fired by the police on the day of the incident. On the ballistics report, there was no indication of a match for two of the spent shells, one of which appeared to have been run over by a motor vehicle.

Pyke, the lead prosecutor in the case, demanded to know which gun that specific spent casing came from.

The judge was puzzled about the relevance of wanting that spent casing to be singled out.

“I don’t understand what you are saying, and I am a bit confused,” admitted Bertram-Linton.

“I want to have the spent casing marked, M’lady,” Pyke said, to which Bertram-Linton responded, “To indicate what? Why are you singling it out?”

Pyke explained that she needed the expert to mark the spent casing to indicate that it was associated with crime scene marker number one which was previously shown on photographs to the court. She said it was out of an abundance of caution that she wanted the witness to take another look so as to not confuse it with any other 5.56mm cartridge case.

Despite Pyke’s explanation, the judge could not understand what she was trying to achieve and told the prosecutor that she did not need to single out the spent casing and that she was going into something fresh that would have to be disclosed to the defence team.

“I have to tell you that I am lost,” Bertram-Linton said, explaining that she could sense that an objection would come from defence attorney Hugh Wildman.

Before the judge could finish speaking, Wildman jumped to his feet and said, “I did not attend Ward 21 before I came here, M’Lady.”

“The comment about Ward 21, what is it about?” Pyke probed.

Bertram-Linton encouraged Pyke to move on.

Meanwhile, Althea Grant-Coppin and John Jacobs, two defence attorneys working alongside Wildman, objected to the witness being allowed to do any further analysis and producing any additional reading other than what was already submitted as part of the ballistics report in relation to spent casings.

The judge is expected to hear arguments today from the defence and the prosecution on the matter, following which a ruling is expected.

After the ruling, the defence is expected to begin cross-examination of the witness.