ATTORNEYS for Kevaughn Green, the brother of alleged leader of the St Catherine-based Klansman gang Andre Blackman Bryan, on Thursday argued vigorously that Green, who is allegedly second in command in the gang, should have been among the four men freed that day as the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence against him other than that he was the brother of Bryan.

Green, who is charged with being a member of a criminal organisation, illegal possession of a firearm and two counts of facilitating the commission of a criminal offence, was amongst the original 33 being tried for several offences under the anti-gang and firearm legislation.

On Thursday ahead of no-case submissions from the defence team, the number of accused slid to 29 after the Crown admitted that it had no evidence to pursue its case against Damaine Elliston, Rushane Williams, Rivaldo Hylton and Owen Ormsby, resulting in trial judge Chief Justice Bryan Sykes ordering their release. The Crown also conceded on several other counts on the indictment saying it had insufficient evidence or no evidence in respect of those charges which had been slapped on several of the other accused.

Attorney Anna Kay Kelly, one of the two counsels representing Green, during a no case submission argued that he should have been allowed to walk as well, charging that the prosecution at the close of its case failed to adduce sufficient evidence showing that he was a member of a criminal organisation.

“Neither counts, two, four nor 12 have been established by the prosecution,” Kelly said, adding that no evidence had been brought to show that Green had knowingly shared in the proceeds of any unlawful activities of the gang.

She further contended that absent from the Crown´s case, which relied heavily on the testimonies of two former gang members turned state witnesses, was reference to any activities the accused would have carried out. According to Kelly, the “prosecution’s case taken at its highest while it has some evidence is of a tenuous nature”.

Pointing out that Witness Number One, by his own admission, said he had never seen Green going on any operations with the gang or taking or issuing orders but had stated that Bryan made a distinct effort to keep his brother from getting too involved, Kelly insisted that “the Crown has not adduced sufficient evidence of any relationship between Andre Bryan and the accused outside of the bond of brotherhood in a familial sense”.

“Also, of significant note is the fact that nowhere in any of the many statements given by Witness Number One does he mention Kevaughn Green or of any participation on his part with respect to the gang. No independent evidence has been led to show that the crime charged might have been committed by the accused, while the court can convict without this, it would be unsafe to do so,” she said further.

In November last year, Witness Number One, in his testimony, said Bryan had restrained his brother from being part of killings done by the gang but had allowed him to ‘collect guns’.

“Blackman don’t want him to do any killing; he always keep him back most of the times,” the witness said then, in response to questions from Justice Sykes. According to the witness Green was very much a top tier as, “at nights when we are bleaching (staying up until odd hours) he is also there”.

“I remember when they buy an AK47 he was also there. He was one of the ones who test it out to see if it firing good,” the witness declared.

Asked by the Chief Justice: “So, Mr Bryan would keep him back from some things?”

The witness responded: “Yes your honour.”

Thursday Kelly said “given all the issues raised as it relates to the evidence or the lack therefore, it is submitted that the evidentiary burden of the charges on the indictment have not been discharged by the prosecution, neither of the two main witnesses were able to provide sufficient evidence that taken at its highest a jury could properly convict on. At best the prosecution’s evidence is tenuous in nature because of its inherent weaknesses and inability to substantiate the elements of the offence against the accused. Consequently, it is submitted that it would be manifestly unsafe of the jury to convict the accused upon such evidence,” the attorney declared.

Meanwhile, Kimani Brydson, attorney for Tomrick Taylor, Daniel McKenzie and Owen Orsmby, one of the men freed on Thursday, said all three of his clients should have been sprung.

According to Brydson, while the prosecution in opening its case on September 20 last year had said Tomrick Taylor “ensured that murders ordered by Andre Bryan were carried out with perfect execution” the claim had not been borne out in the evidence brought.

He further argued that the 25-count indictment brought by the Crown had only made mention of one incident in which the Crown through its witnesses alleged that Taylor was party to an execution. That incident however fell under Count Six which is one of several counts the Crown on Thursday conceded that it had insufficient evidence to ground Taylor on.

According to Brydson, “There has been no further evidence elicited from any of the witnesses of the prosecution that Mr Taylor was party to a criminal enterprise. There was no evidence elicited from any of the witnesses that Taylor received or carried out or saw to it that any act with any criminal element was executed”. He also pointed out that his client’s contact number was not stored in any of the telephone devices of the witnesses, three of which have been entered into evidence during the trial. Brydson further maintained that the testimonies of the witnesses were contradictory in respect of the aliases they referred to Taylor by and claims that gangsters were severely punished for refusing to take orders from Bryan referencing an instance in which Taylor refused to participate in a hit but was not punished.

Brydson and Kelly were among 10 attorneys who made no case submissions on Thursday. The remaining members of the defence team are expected to continue making their pitches to the bench when the matter resumes on Monday at 10:00 am in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston.