Attorneys representing six policemen who are on trial for murder in the Home Circuit Court are awaiting a ruling from judge Sonia Bertram-Linton following an attempt by the prosecution to tender into evidence a document that lists firearms they say are not associated with the cops.

The policemen are on trial for murder in relation to the January 12, 2013 shooting deaths of Matthew Lee, Ucliffe Dyer and Mark Allen. The three men were killed in an alleged shootout with the police on Acadia Drive in Barbican in St Andrew.

On Monday, during the testimony of a superintendent of police from the ballistics division of the government forensic laboratory, it was revealed that some items of evidence purported to be related to the case were not in court and were still at the lab.

Lead prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke appeared surprised by this revelation.

On Tuesday when the items were brought to court and Pyke sought to have them and an associated document tendered into evidence, it was flagged by defence attorney Hugh Wildman.

Pyke had asked the judge to allow the defence to peruse the document for 10 minutes or so. During the process of the attorneys perusing the document, it was reportedly discovered that although it had the correct forensic lab file number related to the case, all the items listed did not belong to any of the policemen.

Wildman quickly objected, which led to a lengthy back and forth which Bertram-Linton entertained.

“I have a serious issue here because this document that is served on us has nothing to do with this case. These firearms that are now in this document are not related to this incident,” Wildman said, adding “It was just served on us and this is part of what I have been talking about. It has the same forensic lab (FL) number but they are different firearms.”

Wildman continued: “It is part of the incompetence I have been talking about in this case. It is the same FL number but these men have nothing to do with these firearms. What is happening here is that evidence is being concocted as we go along and it was just served on us.

“What a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive. This is very serious. All the weapons in this addendum, none of them are related to this case but they have the same FL number. What a something,” he added.

Pyke rose to her feet citing a point of order, taking issue with Wildman’s comments including that of a purported “tangled web” and an attempt to deceive.

“Milady, on a point of order,” Pyke said.

“I am not finished,” Wildman interjected, refusing to yield to the prosecutor.

Pyke appeared unwilling to sit even after Wildman expressed that he did not complete his point.

However, Pyke was forced to stand down after Bertram- Linton instructed Wildman to speak to the end, adding that she would allow the prosecutor to respond.

Wildman continued, “I am saying that we were served with this thing a while ago, disclosure like a thief in the night and luckily we were able to check it in a short period of time and immediately discovered that none of the firearms in question relate to these accused persons.”

Attorney John Jacobs, who forms part of the defence team alongside Wildman and Althea Grant-Coppin said he was in full agreement with Wildman’s submission.

Pyke uttered that the remarks from the defence were premature and presumptuous. According to her, the information in the document surprised her as well.

“It actually unfolded in front of the court. It is a ballistics certificate where it refers to items labelled V,W and X. As the superintendent outlined, there were items which weren’t collected in relation to this case. I asked the court to allow the registrar to take the document from him, copy it so that we could all be disposed of it, including myself.

“I made it clear. I had no intention of eliciting evidence from anything that has just been handed to me so I don’t understand what my friend is objecting to. We have to have material disclosed to the defence which connects and makes things relevant to the case. Until I get it I won’t elicit it,” Pyke said, claiming that she only sought to disclose the document but was not planning to use it.

Bertram-Linton said, “So why disclose it then”?

Pyke replied that she had to disclose it because it was contained in the bundle of documents that the superintendent had.
“It doesn’t mean I am going to use it. We have the duty of disclosure so if there is something that could be relevant or have value or basis, we still have to give it to them whether we use it or not. Secondly Milady the statement we were trying to send to counsel, it is just a statement related to the collection of these exhibits, the sealed envelopes,” Pyke said.

After looking at the document for herself, Bertram-Linton looked at Pyke and said, “Miss Pyke, you are trying to work magic”.

Pyke’s response was, “Milady, what I am simply doing is this. There are some exhibits that need to be tendered from this witness and all we have done, yesterday as we would have discovered that there were exhibits taken to central stores and brought to court but were not the sum total of all the exhibits that were on the list and so there were other exhibits which we identified were at the lab. They were collected yesterday. The officer who collected them has submitted a statement that’s all.”

Bertram-Linton explained that she understood what Pyke was telling her, however, the judge still had an issue.

“For example, I am looking at this document and it is saying evidence unparcelled and labelled V, which was received on the 6th of June 2016.”

Wildman accused Pyke of knowingly trying to admit the document and said the crown’s argument was unacceptable.

“Don’t come and say you didn’t intend to rely on it when you have led evidence before the jury that these items were relevant to the case. That is what you have done. They have the same FL number and the jury heard that. This sort of trying to put on this innocent face is not going to work here. When you are caught, you’re caught. You were leading evidence in this case that is not relevant to this trial. If it was not for the vigilance of us when you served us this late document that we were able to look at it and pick up these things,” he said.

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.