New Photo ID Debated In Tesha Miller Faction Trial Over Dead Witness Statement

Defence objections remained before the court on Tuesday as the prosecution recalled the first of two witnesses in the ongoing trial of 25 alleged members of the reputed Tesha Miller faction of the Klansman gang. The witness was brought back to assist the court with a dispute over a photograph said to show Shaniece Roberts, a witness who died before the trial opened in February this year.

For several weeks, the Crown and defence have argued over whether Roberts had been properly identified, with both sides making repeated submissions about the photograph. The issue has arisen in the Crown’s Section 31(D) application under the Evidence Act, through which prosecutors are trying to place before the court a statement Roberts gave to police before she died.

That statement relates to the Friday, February 7, 2020 killing of Noah Smith at Yarico Place in St Andrew. The legal application would allow a statement to be used as evidence where a witness cannot give live testimony, commonly because the person is dead, ill, overseas, or cannot be found despite reasonable steps being taken.

The statement is linked to counts 15 and 16 of the indictment. Michael Wildman, Jerome Spike, Nashuan Guest, and Geovaughni McDonald are accused of “knowingly facilitating the commission” of the robbery and murder.

In earlier arguments, defence lawyers said the testimony from a woman who knew Roberts, along with evidence from the detective constable who recorded Roberts’ statement on the night of the killing, was not enough. They pointed to the poor quality of the photograph presented for identification, describing it as “distorted”. The defence position was that the person in the image was not the same woman the policeman interviewed on the night Smith was killed.

When the acquaintance returned to the witness box on Tuesday, the Crown produced another photograph. Asked whether she knew the person shown, the witness replied, “Yes, Ma’am… it is a picture of Shaniece Latoya Roberts.” Prosecutors then asked for that image to be tendered and accepted into evidence as an exhibit.

Defence Attorney Denise Hinson, cross-examining the witness, first had her confirm the spelling of Roberts’ name. She then asked whether the witness knew where the new photograph had come from. The witness said she had supplied it.

Hinson went on to ask whether anyone had directed her on what kind of photograph to send, a question that drew objections from the prosecution. Justice Palmer, who had already permitted the witnesses to be recalled, allowed the question. His earlier ruling had also placed limits on the Crown, including an order that prosecutors were not to speak directly with the two witnesses before they returned to the stand.

“I was just told to send some pictures,” the witness answered.

Another question from Hinson, about whether the nose of the person in the photograph appeared as it did in real life, caused laughter among the accused. “That’s how she looked in real life… all of her father’s kids have nose,” the witness said. When Hinson asked, “You mean all her father’s kids nose a little on the big side?” the witness answered, “Yes”.

The detective constable had earlier told the Crown, while giving evidence-in-chief, that he could recognise Roberts if he saw her again because of her “facial features”. He said one feature was “a very small nose”. Under cross-examination by the defence, however, he said that although he could identify the woman he had spoken with, the photograph before the court, which was said to be Roberts, was “distorted”.

The detective is scheduled to return to the witness stand on Thursday.

Justice Palmer stressed on Tuesday that allowing the Crown to put the new photograph to the witnesses did not decide whether Roberts’ statement could be admitted. He said prosecutors would still have to address the court on the admissibility of the statement itself.

“The Crown is seeking to tender this photograph for the limited purpose of proving the identity of the person who is purportedly deceased and ultimately establishing a nexus between the person who is unavailable due to death, pursuant to the 31 (D) application and the other witness who will be coming to say he wrote a statement. Providing the witness gives the appropriate evidence it will be admissible solely for the purpose of identifying the person contained therein and creating that nexus. It does not mean that the contents of any particular statement is admissible, for example it does not prove death,” Justice Palmer ruled.

The trial is due to continue at 10:00 Thursday morning, when the investigator is expected to be recalled.