Uchence Trial: Prosecution Witness Faces Intense Cross-Examination

178

An attorney in the trial of the so-called Uchence Wilson Gang has accused the prosecution’s second witness of detailing information he’d heard in the press during his evidence.


This comes as defence attorneys are attempting to paint the prosecution’s second witness as a liar. Their cross examinations laboured heavily on suggestions that the witness was lying when he mentioned their client’s involvement in the robberies he has been detailing since last week.


The second witness was cross-examined today by Richard Lynch.
Lynch is representing Michael Lamonth otherwise called ‘ Judge’.
Lynch in his cross-examination established that the witness would often lie about his whereabouts, lie to his family and his close friends to hide his involvement in the gang.


Despite these instances of dishonesty the witness still declared that he has been telling the truth to the court. The former accomplice of the gang has been drilled on the fact that most of his evidence is based on second-hand information from other gang members. But he quipped that “if it nuh guh so it near guh so.”


The witness who, in his evidence, said he was a driver for the gang has been indicating that he would have gone on these operations but participated only in a few. He often dropped off the members, looked out for the police and picked them up after the many break-ins. This line of questioning regarding the credibility of his evidence continued with defence attorney Cecile Griffiths Ashton who is representing Keron Walters otherwise called ‘Tall Man’.


The attorney suggested to the witness that his stories were made up from news items he heard on the radio and read in local papers about violent crimes happening across the country. But the witness strongly disagreed.
Meanwhile,  another attorney Kamesha Mittoo put it to the witness that her clients Tevin Kanai otherwise called ‘Tev’ and Sheldon Christian otherwise called ‘Bella’ were never involved in any robberies or any gang, but the witness disagreed.


Ms. Mittoo then challenged the witness’ answer. She cited that in one particular robbery her client Tev was never mentioned in the witness’ written statement but his involvement was mentioned during his evidence in chief.


When the witness’ written account of the robbery was shown to him, he then agreed that Tev’s name was never mentioned. The cross-examination of the witness will continue tomorrow at 10 am in the home circuit court before Chief Justice Bryan Sykes. The trial of the 24 accused members is in its fifth week.

–30–




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *