With objections from the defence firmly on the record, the first of two witnesses recalled by the prosecution in the continuing trial of 25 alleged members of the so-called Tesha Miller faction of the Klansman gang on Tuesday took the stand to help resolve issues surrounding the photograph of a witness who died before the trial began in February this year.

The identification of the woman, Shaniece Roberts, by the two witnesses has been a sticking point in the matter for several weeks now with numerous submissions on the part of both the Crown and the defence as they battled over the document.

The identification of the woman comes in the course of a Section 31 (D) application under the Evidence Act by the Crown to, in effect, introduce a statement provided by Roberts to cops ahead of her demise regarding the Friday, February 7, 2020 murder of a man called Noah Smith at Yarico Place in St Andrew.

The application in effect allows the introduction of statements as evidence in court when the witness cannot testify live — usually due to death, illness, being abroad, or being unable to be found after reasonable efforts. The offences to which the statement is connected are contained in counts 15 and 16 of the indictment.

The accused — Michael Wildman, Jerome Spike, Nashuan Guest, and Geovaughni McDonald — are being tried for “knowingly facilitating the commission” of that robbery and murder.

The defence, in earlier submissions, had argued that the evidence of an acquaintance of Roberts as well as the evidence of the detective constable who had been the one to record Roberts’ statement on the night of the incident was inadequate, given the “distorted” quality of the photo submitted as identification. The defence maintained that the woman in the photo was not the same woman the cop spoke to on the night of the murder.

On Tuesday, the Crown, after the acquaintance retook the stand, promptly produced a fresh image which the witness, when asked whether she recognised the individual on it, said, “Yes, Ma’am… it is a picture of Shaniece Latoya Roberts.”

With that the Crown made an application for that image to be tendered and admitted as an exhibit.

Defence Attorney Denise Hinson, in cross-examining the witness after having the woman verify the spelling of Roberts’ name, asked whether she was aware of the genesis of the new photo.

When the woman indicated that she had provided the item, Hinson then asked whether she had been instructed about the type of photo to submit amidst objections from the prosecution.

Justice Palmer — who had ruled that the witnesses could be recalled and had imposed restrictions on the Crown which included barring them from speaking directly to the two witnesses before they retook the stand — allowed the question.

“I was just told to send some pictures,” the witness said.

Hinson’s next question to the woman about whether the size of the nose of the person in the photograph was true to life, set the accused chuckling.

“That’s how she looked in real life… all of her father’s kids have nose,” the witness said.

When Hinson asked, “You mean all her father’s kids nose a little on the big side?” the witness said, “Yes”.

The detective constable had told the Crown during his evidence-in-chief that he would be able to recognise Roberts if he saw her again by her “facial features”, which, he said, was marked by “a very small nose”.

However, during cross-examination by the defence he said while he could identify the woman he spoke to, the image the court had purporting to be her likeness was “distorted”.

That detective is to retake the stand on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Justice Palmer made it clear that, while he was allowing the Crown to show the witnesses the new photograph, “it does not mean that the contents of any particular statement is admissible”, as the Crown will still have to make submissions on the issue of the admissibility of Roberts’ statement.

“The Crown is seeking to tender this photograph for the limited purpose of proving the identity of the person who is purportedly deceased and ultimately establishing a nexus between the person who is unavailable due to death, pursuant to the 31 (D) application and the other witness who will be coming to say he wrote a statement. Providing the witness gives the appropriate evidence it will be admissible solely for the purpose of identifying the person contained therein and creating that nexus. It does not mean that the contents of any particular statement is admissible, for example it does not prove death,” Justice Palmer ruled.

The matter resumes on Thursday morning at 10:00 when the sleuth will be recalled.