A high-stakes criminal trial involving 25 alleged members of the Tesha Miller-affiliated Klansman Gang saw intensifying legal battles on Wednesday, as defense teams doubled down on efforts to block prosecutors from entering a key witness statement from a deceased woman into official court evidence. The core of the defense’s challenge centers on serious unresolved questions surrounding the woman’s formal identity.
Prosecutors (referred to as the Crown in this jurisdiction) have been calling a sequence of witnesses to meet the legal criteria laid out in Section 31(D) of the country’s Evidence Act. This provision allows out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence when a witness is unable to testify in person, a rule that applies in cases of death, severe illness, the witness being outside the court’s jurisdiction, or failure to locate the witness after exhaustive reasonable searches. The statement in question relates specifically to the 15th and 16th charges laid out in the grand indictment.
The would-be witness, identified as Shanice Roberts, passed away in February 2021. Before her death, she provided a formal statement to law enforcement investigators about the February 7, 2020 murder of Noah Smith, which occurred at Yarico Place in St. Andrew. Four of the accused — Michael Wildman, Jerome Spike, Nashuan Guest, and Geovaughni McDonald — are standing trial on charges that they knowingly facilitated the robbery and killing that resulted in Smith’s death.
Wednesday’s proceedings focused heavily on cross-examination of the detective constable who recorded Roberts’ statement on the night of the 2020 murder. Denise Hinson, the defense attorney representing Nashuan Guest, subjected the officer’s testimony to searching scrutiny. Hinson argued that the photographic exhibit entered into the record, which the detective identified on Monday as depicting the woman he interviewed the night of the killing, is actually not a photo of Roberts. The detective had previously told the Crown during his direct examination that he could recognize Roberts from her distinctive facial features, specifically noting she had a very small nose. The defense has pushed back hard, contending that the submitted photograph is too blurry for the officer to even make out the shape of her nose, undermining his identification.
Hinson’s attempt to prove that the spelling of the woman’s name recorded by the detective did not match the spelling on official court records was unsuccessful. In response, prosecutors argued that variations in spelling were ultimately irrelevant to the case, emphasizing that the Crown only needs to prove the deceased witness and the person in the photograph are the same individual, regardless of minor name spelling discrepancies.
Presiding Justice Dale Palmer ruled on the dispute, noting that recalling the witness solely to address a minor spelling discrepancy does nothing to resolve the core question of whether the person in the photo is actually Shanice Roberts. “It might not take us anywhere,” Palmer observed, later adding: “How does the spelling assist us in one way or the other even if it was a clear image?”
With the judge indicating he would not allow a witness to be recalled to address Hinson’s spelling challenge, prosecutors announced they will outline next steps for their Section 31(D) application when the court reconvenes next Monday. Hinson and fellow defense attorney Sasha-Kay Shaw, who have both formally objected to admitting the statement, are scheduled to submit written legal arguments on the matter in the coming days.
In a separate procedural ruling on Wednesday, the Crown secured judicial approval to amend the third and fourth counts of the indictment, despite fierce pushback from the defense team. The amendment corrects an incorrect date listed for the offense in question. Defense attorneys argued that the amendment would prejudice their clients — Tesha Miller, Rolando Jermaine Hall and Michael Wildman — who are named in these counts.
Justice Palmer, however, rejected the defense’s objections. He noted that there had been no disagreement over the actual date of the offense during cross-examination of the only witness called so far for these counts. Furthermore, Palmer ruled that the amendment request was filed sufficiently early in the trial proceedings, and that defense teams already have more than enough time to adjust their strategies in response. The judge concluded there was no material prejudice to the accused as a result of the change.
Following the ruling, all defendants formally entered a plea of “not guilty” when asked to respond to the amended counts. The trial is scheduled to resume later on Thursday, with additional procedural and substantive arguments expected to move the high-profile case forward.