THE murder trial of Andre Ruddock in the Home Circuit Court in downtown Kingston could end as early as Friday as the prosecution began its closing arguments on Thursday.

Once lead prosecutor Latoya Bernard completes her submission to the jury, Ruddock’s attorney, Anthony Williams, is expected to make his final arguments thereafter, opening the door for Justice Leighton Pusey, the trial judge, to do his summation and then send the seven jurors off to deliberate.

The sole witness who was called by the defence after Bernard closed the prosecution’s case, was Ruddock, who was escorted from the prisoner’s dock to the witness stand to give evidence.

Ruddock is being tried in relation to the October 17, 2021 killing of 39-year-old Taneka Gardner at Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries in St James.

Ruddock allegedly used a knife to cut her 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, 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 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 had done so under duress and threats.

He claimed to have been physically assaulted by the detective before he got to the police station. He also accused the detective of pointing his firearm at him and threatening to shoot him. Ruddock also said that the detective forced him to take the charge for the pastor and he felt he had no choice but to confess to Gardner’s killing.

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 simply wanted to get things off his chest because he had done wrong.

During cross-examination, the prosecutor 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 had not been threatened or attacked by the woman.

In response, Ruddock insisted that he was innocent and that it was the pastor who had killed Gardner.

After Ruddock returned to the prisoner’s dock, his attorney was expected to call another witness, as he had repeatedly indicated to Judge Pusey. However, when the matter was called up and the roll call of jurors done, Williams had a short conversation with Ruddock then indicated to the judge that he would not be calling any more witnesses for the defence.

“May it so please you, my lord, the defence at this time, we are indicating to the court that we close our case,” he said.

The judge then turned in his seat to address the jurors.

“Ladies and gentlemen who are jurors, the defence has closed their case,” Pusey said.

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 said that during his summation he would explain to them how to deal with those things.

Pusey told the jurors that a trial is not like a mystery story where at the end everything is solved and somebody comes to explain why he killed a victim. He explained that all the trial is trying to determine is whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the particular offence.

“From time to time, there may be things that may be unanswered. You will hear, when we address you, that sometimes the unanswered things may make you feel uncertain and if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, you find the person not guilty. The unanswered things may be such that even with those things that you may have a question about, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. In other words, a trial is not going to answer all your questions. That is unfortunate, but that is the system of justice,” Pusey told them.

The trial resumes today.