Dr Kevin Smith
Defence in Ruddock trial rests without calling second witness
THE murder trial of Andre Ruddock in the Home Circuit Court in downtown Kingston could end as early as Friday.
Ruddock’s attorney-at-law, Anthony Williams, indicated on Wednesday that he was not going to call any more witnesses for the defence, prompting prosecutors to tell Justice Leighton Pusey that they will not spend a long time delivering closing arguments to the jury today when the matter resumes.
Once lead prosecutor Latoya Bernard completes her closing arguments to the jury, Williams is expected to make his final arguments thereafter, opening the door for Pusey, the trial judge, to do his summation and then send the seven jurors off to the jury room to deliberate.
The sole witness that was called by the defence after Bernard closed the prosecution’s case, was Andre Ruddock, who was escorted from the prisoners’ dock to the witness stand to give evidence in his own murder trial
.
Ruddock is being tried in relation to the October 17, 2021 killing of 39-year-old Taneka Gardner at the Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries in St James.
Ruddock allegedly used a knife to cut Gardner’s throat at the church during what is believed to be a human sacrifice ritual.
He allegedly cut Gardner’s throat on instructions from his now deceased pastor, Dr Kevin Smith, who had told Gardner that her throat had to be cut because her blood was unclean.
It is alleged that after she repeatedly told the pastor that she believed he could bring her back from the dead, Smith instructed a male member of the church to cut her neck but he froze and failed to carry out the order. That was when Ruddock allegedly took the knife from him and did exactly as the pastor ordered.
However, during his sworn testimony on Monday, Ruddock told the court that he did not kill Gardner and blamed the pastor instead for carrying out the act.
Even though the jurors heard him admitting to the killing on a video recording that was captured by a detective during an interview at a police station in Montego Bay – in which Ruddock appeared calm and composed – he claimed in court that he did so under duress and threats. He claimed to have been physically assaulted by the detective before he got the police station.
He also accused the detective of pointing his firearm at him and threatening to shoot him. He also claimed that the detective forced him to take the charge for the pastor and felt he had no choice but to confess to Gardner’s throat cutting.
Inside that interview room, Ruddock gave a caution statement admitting to the killing and subsequently answered 42 questions explaining what he did and said it was Smith who gave him the order to do it.
Present in the interview room were two justices of the peace who spoke to Ruddock and asked him if he was comfortable giving the statement and whether he was being forced or harmed in any way. Ruddock explained that he was not harmed, nor was he forced, but just wanted to get things off his chest because he had done wrong.
During cross-examination by the prosecutor, she suggested to Ruddock that he was the one who killed Gardner and that he had no justifiable reason under law to do so because he was not threatened or attacked by the woman.
Despite that suggestion, Ruddock insisted that he was innocent and that it was the pastor who killed her.
After Ruddock returned to the prisoners’ dock, his attorney was expected to call another witness as he had repeatedly indicated to Judge Pusey previously. However, when the matter was called up and the roll call of jurors done, Williams had a short conversation with Ruddock then he indicated to the judge that he would not be calling any more witnesses for the defence.
On Tuesday, just as the matter was to be adjourned, the jurors indicated that they would want the main eyewitness in the case to return for more questions to be posed to him.
However, on Wednesday, Pusey explained that based on how the law operates, that would not be appropriate.
“I recall that we had a conversation on the possibility of recalling a witness. We will not recall the witness because I am of the view that it would not be allowed in law for the following reasons.
Our system of justice is structured in such a way to give the defendant certain advantages. One of those advantages is that he doesn’t have to prove anything, he has the right to remain silent, and he has the choice to give sworn evidence – which he did – or to say what he wanted to say from the dock.
“That right is based on the foundation that he would have heard everything that was against him before he made such choice. To recall a witness at this time when there are certain unusual circumstances where something arises that wasn’t there before and I am of the view that no such thing has arisen, this court will not be calling the witness back. I understand that there may be issues that were not properly answered and you will hear from counsel and you will hear my directions in law,” Pusey said.
He explained that during his summation he would explain to them how to deal with those things.
After Pusey made his address to the jurors, the prosecutor indicated that she would not be lengthy in her closing arguments to the seven members of the jury.
“My lord, I was wondering if you were saying that the Crown could close tomorrow and the defence on Friday but I think both of us can close on the same day. I don’t plan to be more than an hour and the defence goes thereafter. I don’t think they need a whole day,” Bernard said.
The judge responded that if that is so, he could start his summation and complete it on Friday then hand things over to the jurors.
“We would be able to release the jurors. They would be happy in relation to that,” he said.
