BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - ALTHOUGH the defence counsel in the murder trial against Randy Taylor and Lennox 'Len' Gumbs fought very hard to not have a video footage shown to the 12-member jury, they were unsuccessful in convincing the judge that to do so would be prejudicial.
Taylor and Gumbs are jointly charged with the murder of Trevis Henville, an offence they allegedly committed on the morning of April 17, 2012.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Rhonda Nisbett-Browne on Tuesday (Jul. 9) made an application to have a DVD entered into evidence which sparked a debate between counsel on both sides that went on for a few days.
The dispute began when Constable Travis Henry, who is attached to the Local Intelligence Office (LIO), took the stand on Tuesday to give evidence as to a digital video recorder (DVR) that was seized from a room in the office of Dr. Derrick Jeffers on the day of the incident.
He told the Court that later that day at the LIO, in the presence of Inspector Adams and Corporal Jacobs, he viewed the footage that was on the DVR. He then stated that he burnt what he saw onto a digital versatile disc (DVD) and then made an extra copy of it.
Henry said he then placed his signature and date on the original DVR, after which he placed it into a case, sealed it and affixed his signature and the date on it. He said it was kept in custody since then.
When presented with the DVR, the Constable could not identify his signature and the date on the case but was able to do so with those on the DVR.
An application was made to have the DVR tendered into evidence and this was strongly objected to by both defence counsel Chesley Hamilton and Dr. Henry Browne QC.
They argued that if the video footage is entered it should be just for identification purposes and not with the intention of having it shown to the jury.
Acting DPP told the Court that, at that time, it was just for identification.
Following arguments presented by counsel on both sides over the terms on which the DVR should be entered into evidence, it was eventually allowed.
Henry testified that the DVR was seized on April 17 and that he started burning the footage that was on the DVR onto the DVD sometime after midnight.
He could not ascertain how long it took to burn onto the DVD.
More objections were made by defence counsel with regards to Constable Henry's qualifications to give evidence on such technical matters.
Court was then adjourned to allow time to determine his qualifications.
On Wednesday (July 10) Henry was back on the witness stand and gave details of the process by which he burnt the footage from the DVR to the DVD. He then testified that the burnt DVD was given to Inspector Smithen.
When asked if he saw the footage he was burning, an objection was made by Attorney Hamilton who, using information from the Evidence Act, stated that Officer Henry should not be allowed to reveal what he saw.
He also argued once again that the video footage should not be allowed to be shown to the jury. Henry was however allowed to view the footage in the jury's presence without having them see what was on the DVR.
This was to ensure that what was on the DVR was the same thing that was seized from Dr. Jeffers' office on the day of the murder. Henry did confirm that the DVR footage was authentic.
During cross examination, Henry revealed that he did not discuss the footage with Corporal Jacobs and that he could not identify anyone in particular on it.
Inspector Adolph Adams also testified with regards to the video.
Early in his testimony an objection was made by Hamilton who argued that there was no foundation laid as to how the video came into being. Using information from the Evidence Act, he told the Court that no one came to testify as to how the footage got onto the DVR or why it was set up.
He stated that there was no evidence of standard procedure or process as to how the recording came into being.
Dr. Browne argued that Adams was not at the crime scene and was not an eyewitness and therefore could not speak to what was on the footage, as it would be hearsay.
He told the Court that it would be far more prejudicial than probative to allow Adams, who was not at the crime scene and who was only present while the footage was being viewed, to give evidence as to what he saw on it.
He argued that the situation would have been different if Adams were present when the killing occurred, having seen it for himself or even if he did not see what took place but was just present at the scene of the crime.
Dr. Browne further argued that the key witnesses in the case stated in their deposition that they could not be certain of the identity of the persons on the video, therefore, they should not be allowed to give evidence as to who is in footage.
Arguments were then presented in the absence of the jury.
Hamilton and Browne put up strong and lengthy arguments to have Adams' testimony excluded, but they were unsuccessful in persuading His Lordship Justice Errol Thomas who, upon the return of the jury, allowed the video footage to be shown.
Justice Thomas said that he could not disallow a witness' testimony based on what is in their deposition.
As the video footage was shown to the jury, Inspector Adams explained who and what was in it.
