DEFENCE attorney John-Mark Reid on Tuesday claimed that one of the Crown’s star witnesses — who is scheduled to testify against his alleged ex-cronies from the so-called Tesha Miller faction of the Klansman gang — was convicted and sentenced for a 2020 murder for which two defendants are now being tried.

Reid made the assertion while cross-examining the detective sergeant who has testified that he was the lead investigator into the April 18, 2020 murder of St Catherine man William Christian and the wounding of another man.

The sleuth told the court that following a meeting with one of the Crown’s main witnesses the accused, Michael Wildman, who was at that time in custody at Greater Portmore Police Station (known colloquially as 100 Man station), and Lamar Rowe, who are jointly charged for those crimes, were subsequently arrested and charged. The two are among 25 accused now standing trial for various crimes.

But Reid, in a surprise twist on Tuesday morning while questioning the detective about his interactions with the second Crown witness, insisted that the informant had in fact been convicted and sentenced for the William Christian murder and that the investigator’s name was “on the back of the indictment”.

The surprised cop, in asking “My name?” told the court under further questioning that while he knew that witness was tagged “a major player” in questionable activities by crime fighters in Spanish Town, he only knew that he “was somewhere in custody”.

“I am not aware he was convicted,” the cop said.

Asked if he had been aware or was surprised that it was that Crown witness, instead of the other main witness, who had been convicted for the murder of William Christian he replied, “Based on your line of questioning I am now aware”.

Reid, earlier in his cross-examination of the detective, questioned him at length about his interactions with the Crown’s other main witness, making heavy weather about the cop’s uncertainty as to the whereabouts of notes of an initial 20-minute dialogue, despite the fact that police protocol requires all interactions between police and suspects be recorded. The cop, when asked if he had made notes during that informal session, had replied “I am not certain.”

Under further questioning from Reid the detective sergeant said he “might” have notes but was not certain of the amount of detail contained in those notes. Furthermore, he said he was uncertain whether that notebook was at his home or current office location.

Asked if the notes existed, the cop said, “I think they exist.”

He, in the meantime, dismissed suggestions from the attorney that one of the main witnesses who had been the one to give details which led to the charging of Wildman had requested and received pledges from him for “help, leniency, consideration or protection”.

“At no time did [that Crown witness] make such suggestions to me,” he told the court.

The prosecution, after the arraignment of the 25 accused on February 4, indicated that its two star witnesses — ex-gangsters who have already pleaded guilty to varying offences, including murder, and are currently serving prison sentences — will be the linchpin of its case against all the accused. Neither of the two have yet taken the stand, and their identities have also been withheld. The defence has, however, been chiding the Crown for not yet rolling out those two witnesses, and have been chiselling away at their credibility.

Details contained in statements read into court records last week revealed that the shooting had been carried out by “three gunmen” and that three firearms were used. Based on the autopsy done some 53 days after Christian was killed, the cause of death was due to massive bleeding, injury to both lungs, and multiple gunshot wounds.

Meanwhile, defence attorney Denise Hinson, in further cross-examination of the witness, caused a stir when she attempted to have the witness identify himself in a frozen image.

The attorney had earlier questioned the witness about whether he had interviewed one of the Crown witnesses as early as 7:57 one morning.

The cop, who had not yet seen the image, had confidently replied, “That could not have been me, not at that time”.

Hinson, however, in handing the witness the time-stamped image so he could verify if he was in the image, was cut short by the prosecution when she attempted to ask him if he “recognised” what was there.

The prosecution blocked that question, contending that the attorney was attempting to lead the witness to go into details which were not in evidence.

Hinson, however, maintained that her approach was backed by law.

“I was simply asking the witness if he recognised what is there… I can’t see how it is not permissible for the cross-examiner to not be able to ask the witness if he recognises what he has in his hand,” she maintained, citing case law.

Attempting to resolve the issue, which continued after the customary lunch break, Justice Dale Palmer allowed the attorney to continue with the question on the understanding that she would do this solely to illicit a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer without requiring more.

The prosecution, which had been vociferous in their objections, called for “caution in the manner in which the question is framed”, saying that if widened beyond what was being allowed there was danger of eliciting “hearsay through the back door”.

However, no sooner had the item been replaced in the witness’ hand Hinson proceeded to say, “Look at that carefully… what you are looking at, does that capture your presence that day?”

The cop’s “Yes” came even while prosecutors sputtered in dismay.

“The witness says ‘yes’. Might the witness step outside please,” Hinson said promptly.

In the back and forth that ensued the acting deputy director of public prosecutions, who has been leading the evidence in the trial, asserted that Hinson had displayed “flagrant disregard for what she indicated earlier on what she would ask”, branding her diversion “highly improper”.

Hinson, however, argued that she had been quite in line. But Justice Palmer told Hinson that “the horse has already gone through the gate”, adding, “I don’t believe how [the question] was asked was what we agreed.”

Several moments later, after her line of questioning again attracted a rebuke from the prosecution, Hinson complained that her “cross-examination is being curtailed”.

That declaration prompted this response from the trial judge: “I am not curtailing you… you are not allowed in this exercise to elicit hearsay; we have already done so inadvertently”.

With the witness again on the stand Hinson then proceeded to say, “Sergeant, you having accepted that what you looked at captured your presence that day” only to be interrupted by the witness who briskly replied “Yes ma’am, but the time is incorrect.”

“Of course, you were going to say that the time stamped on it is incorrect,” the attorney retorted before going on to ask the witness if while he had been sent outside the courtroom he had been able to eavesdrop on what was being said inside.

“No ma’am,” the cop replied.

The matter continues at 10:00 this morning.