Defence requests delay Crown bid to admit Shaniece Roberts statement in Miller trial

A fresh bid by prosecutors to continue arguments for admitting a deceased woman’s statement into evidence was put off on Monday after lawyers for accused gangster Tesha Miller brought several late applications before the court.

The development led to a prolonged back-and-forth with defence counsel and drew a rare public show of irritation from Justice Dale Palmer, who is usually restrained on the bench.

For several weeks, both sides have been arguing over whether the woman, Shaniece Roberts, has been properly identified, with much of the dispute centred on a photograph prosecutors want placed on the trial record.

Last week, after the Crown recalled two witnesses and presented a new photograph, Justice Palmer gave prosecutors permission to resume submissions on June 1 under Section 31(D) of the Evidence Act. The provision allows a statement to be used in court where the maker cannot appear in person, including because of death, illness, absence from the jurisdiction, or because the person cannot be located after reasonable steps are taken.

Roberts had given a statement to police before she died from health-related complications. That statement concerns the murder of Noah Smith, who was killed on Friday, February 7, 2020, at Yarico Place in St Andrew.

The statement is tied to counts 15 and 16 on the indictment. Michael Wildman, Jerome Spike, Nashuan Guest, and Geovaughni McDonald are before the court on allegations that they knowingly facilitated the commission of the robbery and murder.

However, when the case resumed on Monday, applications made by Miller’s attorneys, Denise Hinson and John Clarke, made it clear that the Crown would not immediately proceed with its application.

Hinson told the court that, after reconsidering the matter, the defence wanted to see every photograph supplied to the Crown by an acquaintance of Roberts. That acquaintance told the court last week that she had sent several images, from which prosecutors chose one to show to witnesses.

The judge then tried repeatedly to establish whether the defence was formally seeking an adjournment so that prosecutors could respond to the request. The exchange became tense as Justice Palmer pressed for a plain answer.

Justice Palmer reminded the lawyers that the defence had ended its case in the voir dire dealing with the photographs the previous week and had also said it would not call witnesses. He warned that the new request would cause delay and said the issue could have been raised earlier.

Hinson responded that she did not know the defence had closed its case, saying she might have been absent from court at the time. She also said the defence had serious concerns about whether the investigator who handed the photographs to the Crown was the same detective constable who identified Roberts from the images.

When the judge allowed the two witnesses to be recalled, he had ordered that the Crown should not make direct contact with either of them. The defence said it needed to be satisfied that the prosecution had obeyed that order.

Clarke supported Hinson’s position and told the judge the defence wanted written details on “the circumstances in which those witnesses were informed to come back to court to be recalled, and to disclose the photographs, to whom the photographs were disclosed, and who ultimately took the decision to cherry-pick one”.

Justice Palmer replied: “I know all of this, but in the interest of justice and fairness, it’s unfortunate that when we had the time last week all these things were not raised… It’s unfortunate, in the interest of justice and fairness, that today when we are to hear the application is when all these issues are being raised.”

He then asked Clarke whether the range of matters being requested meant the defence was applying for an adjournment.

“Milord, you are the umpire of fairness. And bear in mind, Milord, that when a decision was made to allow the witnesses to be recalled that would trigger automatically enhanced disclosure obligations on the prosecutor or prosecuting authority to ensure that no injustice is done by that process,” Clarke answered.

The judge pressed the point again, saying he still had not heard whether the defence was asking that the application be adjourned. Justice Palmer said fairness also required the case to move along in a timely way, and that the requests being made could not realistically be dealt with in time for the Crown’s application to be heard that day.

Clarke replied: “Justice rushed is justice crushed, and we don’t want justice crushed.”

Justice Palmer responded sharply: “We don’t want the platitudes, counsel, I just want a direct answer! That is what annoys, just tell me directly what it is you’re asking for. Is your application for an adjournment of the application? That’s what you need to say.”

After further exchanges, the matter was eventually put off so the Crown could provide the material sought by the defence.

“It is clear that we’ll not hear this application today, because no right-thinking person could think that the things that counsel has just alluded to can be obtained today, or for us to even hear this application…How on earth could that be done today, so why not just say that? And we have to be almost an hour later to get to this point, to get to what was obviously the position from the beginning…I am not afraid to say [the word] ‘annoyed’. It is annoying, because we had the time last week,” Justice Palmer said.

The Crown is scheduled to resume the application on Wednesday when the case returns to the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston.