THE debate between the prosecution and defence attorneys on whether a statement from a witness who resides overseas should be admitted into evidence in the murder trial of six policemen came to an end on Wednesday, leaving it up to the judge to now make a ruling.

The ruling is expected from trial judge Sonia Bertram-Linton on Friday, following a day’s break for her to review submissions from both the prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke, and defence attorneys Hugh Wildman, John Jacobs and Althea Grant-Coppin.

On trial for murder in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston are Sergeant Simroy Mott and Corporal Donovan Fullerton, along with 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 (Indecom).

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 in an alleged shoot-out with the police on Acadia Drive in St Andrew.

The trial began in January.

On Wednesday, Pyke cited authorities in trying to have the statement of the witness admitted into evidence without the witness having to testify in the trial.

The prosecutor is also seeking to have an officer from Indecom give evidence to say that the witness, a former ballistics analyst at Indecom, told him that she is not interested in testifying due to “family issues”.

The defence objected to the application on the grounds that the Indecom officer would be giving hearsay evidence. They contended that such an arrangement may only occur under specific circumstances, including, for example, a situation where a witness expresses fear as a result of threats.

Wildman, and the other members of the defence team, said since the witness made no declaration regarding fear for her life, she should either be made to testify or have her statement scrapped from the trial. The statement given was in relation to the witness’s analysis of weapons and spent casings linked to the case.

According to Pyke, the witness, “has said she is not going to testify. She has given evidence so often and she has family issues. If she is not going to testify, why would the law require us to bring her to court via video link? It renders us in an absurd situation”.

Wildman, meanwhile, said he was amazed by the legal authorities used by the prosecution, to justify why the statement should be allowed.

“I was wondering if it was a different case we were dealing with… just to remind you that the application before you, M’Lady, is 31 D (c) and not 31 D (e) [of the Evidence Act]. My learned friend spent all her time addressing you on the 31 D (e) requirements, without dealing in any way with what is required under 31 D (c). The cases which were cited… agree with everything I have said.”

The trial continues Friday.

— Jason Cross