TENSE moments dotted the cross-examination of a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) in the ongoing trial of 25 alleged members of the so-called Tesha Miller-led faction of the Klansman gang after the lead prosecutor locked horns with defence attorney Paul Gentles on Thursday.

These came as the lead prosecutor charged that the senior attorney was not only misquoting the evidence of the senior cop but was also making utterances that could prejudice his own client.

The deputy superintendent, who returned to the witness stand in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday, had testified on Wednesday that he was the one to assign investigators to probe an August 5, 2017 double murder and a wounding with intent case after a vehicle with people aboard was shot up; as well as a November 28, 2017 murder of a man called Richard Gray.

All the offences were committed in the vicinity of Dunbeholden. According to the cop, in the incident with the double homicide, he arrived at the scene and saw a motor vehicle “in the middle of the road with the doors open”.

He said he saw blood in the car and also saw several spent casings. The DSP also told the court that in November he again journeyed to the same area where he saw the body of a man inside a shop with what appeared to be gunshot wounds. He said six spent casings, one damaged bullet and one blood sample were collected from that scene.

The cop, who said no one had been arrested in relation to the murders during his time in the division (St Catherine South), told the court that he had been “made aware of” a suspect in the murder of Gray but that individual was later killed.

The accused Tesha Miller, Rolando Jermaine Hall and Michael Wildman are charged with knowingly facilitating the commission of a serious offence by a criminal organisation in relation to the August 5, 2017 double murder and the wounding with intent of the other man. Gentles represents the accused Michael Wildman. Another alleged gang member Travis Drummond is charged with knowingly facilitating the murder of Gray.

Thursday, the first sign of turmoil came when Gentles, in resuming his cross examination of the senior cop told him, “you gave evidence also that there were spent casings and bullet fragments” sparking the first objection from the acting deputy director of public prosecutions who was leading the evidence.

“Again Milord I am asking counsel to be very clear in respect of this one. This witness gave evidence about two incidents. We ask that counsel refresh himself from his notes in respect to this incident, or if he is asking in relation to the second incident that his client is not named on,” the lead prosecutor cautioned.

“Sir, my interest is only in respect to the double murder, I have no interest in anything else that may have happened after, or any other evidence you may have given. As it relates to the double murder you gave evidence about collecting spent casings,” Gentles continued but was again met with an objection.

“Sorry, not about collecting, about observing, Gentles capitulated remarking sarcastically, “happy to see that you are awake today” before continuing with “you gave evidence that you observed spent casings and bullet fragments or warheads,” only to be stopped by the lead prosecutor who again objected.

An undaunted Gentles however remained standing and continued laying out his question to the witness.

“I am objecting I would like to state my objection,” the lead prosecutor insisted, also standing.

“I have withdrawn,” Gentles said in seeking to continue. He was however prevented when trial judge Justice Dale Palmer indicated that he wished to hear the objection.

“Milord I find it strange that mi learned friend would seem to misquote the evidence persistently in this manner, mi learned friend is placing certain things to the witness or paraphrasing the evidence, he ought to be faithful to what the evidence is. There’s nowhere in this witness’s evidence that he spoke of any warheads or any bullet fragments in relation to any double murder,” the prosecutor stated.

Gentles rising again said, “very well, Milord,” before asking the cop if he had made, “any observation of any evidential items in respect to the double murder that may be of ballistic interest”.

When the witness replied “Yes, Sir” Gentles said, “when I ask you a question I want you to pause so my friends can have an opportunity to object, okay.

“Now, tell us, what it is you observed of an evidential value in respect to the double murder as it touch and concern any ballistic findings”.

The witness replied, “Spent casings.”

Moments later another verbal showdown broke the cadence of the proceedings.

Gentles had proceeded to test the knowledge of the senior cop about various calibres of firearms before stating once again, “And you collected spent casings”, only to be interrupted by another objection from the Crown.

“I do apologise. Have a seat, Sir,” said Gentles. “I am withdrawing my statement.” He attempted to continue but the lead prosecutor was adamant. “I am making my objection for the record.”

When the judge decided to hear the objection the prosecutor said, “This is a good display of what I’m complaining about. The discourtesy of counsel is what I’m having a problem with, and it is the posture of counsel why others are behaving as he’s behaving.”

The flames leapt higher when the prosecutor in continuing his submission was interrupted by Gentles who demanded, “Milord, is my friend objecting to what I am submitting or is he trying to attack my standing?”

The prosecutor retorted, “I am not finished, I am referring to your behaviour.” To which Gentles responded, “But that’s not a part of the evidence.”

Justice Palmer interjected but Gentles was adamant that the lead prosecutor was complaining about his behaviour which was not part of the evidence.

“Milord, this is the complaint that I have because counsel continues saying these things on the record. It is a recorded proceeding. Counsel ought to desist from that. This is not his backyard, Milord. The specific objection is in respect to counsel, deliberately and continuously misquoting the evidence. This witness didn’t speak about collecting any material on the scene and this is an objection which we took twice before,” the prosecutor stated, unfazed.

Justice Palmer, in quelling the matter, said, “All right, Mr Gentles, although the question was withdrawn, it is not inaccurate to say there has been some misquoting.”

Gentles retorted, “And I acknowledged quickly, it having been said and withdrew it before my friend got all excited about my behaviour. He is using that point to address what he perceives as my behaviour towards him and the prosecution. I have no difficulty with my friend or this manner in which he is operating in terms of the case.

”But if he’s objecting to something, it must be on a point of law and not in respect to what he perceives as my conduct. That’s his perception. I don’t hear anybody else objecting. But be that as it may, Milord, if we could get some work done whilst I’m on my feet, I have no difficulty.”

The lull that followed in the proceedings was again disrupted after Gentles, in resuming his questioning, chided the senior cop for not producing a statement of his own until nearly eight years after the incident.

“You were in charge… and you described your responsibility to my friend eloquently, which includes assigning investigations to subordinates, and you did no investigation or work on this particular case other than the initial assignment and writing a statement eight-and-a-half years later?” Gentles asked sardonically, attracting yet another objection.

“Counsel has these running commentaries and he doesn’t even realise that his commentaries can be prejudicial to his own client, counsel continuously does this Milord… he ought to desist from it,” the lead prosecutor stated leaving Gentles to declare “he wants to conduct the prosecution and the defence at the same time”.

The trial judge in attempting to quash the matter noted that the prosecution was entitled to object if there was a misstatement or an inaccuracy in the quoting of the evidence.

“Counsel doesn’t even have the substance recognise what he is doing. Counsel just now mentioned certain things about his client life in his sotto voce comments, which are being captured by the record and he ought to stop it,” the lead prosecutor stated adamantly.

“I would certainly caution Counsel against it, because it now occurs to me that while the court reporters tend to use their discretion to exclude certain exchanges… a transcript could give an impression that those things were really said to the court or said to the witness, or accepted by the court,” Justice Palmer noted, adding “a word to the wise, I suppose, is sufficient… sotto voce comments are making their way onto the record and it is not something to be encouraged.”

Defence attorneys will continue their cross-examination of the DSP on Monday when the trial resumes.