After nearly a decade of legal uncertainty that upended the lives of two accused individuals, the high-profile murder trial against Jamaican dancehall performer Munga Honorable — born Damian Rhoden — and his co-defendant Sheridan “Mad Rhymes” Gordon ended abruptly this Friday in the Gun Court Division of the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston. The prosecution’s case fell apart entirely after Crown prosecutors ultimately aligned with the defense’s core argument: the prosecution’s only eyewitness was too unreliable to sustain a conviction.
The case dates back to 2017, when Cleveland Campbell was fatally shot in Ackee Walk, St Andrew. The sole prosecution witness claimed she had witnessed Rhoden and Gordon open fire on Campbell, but extensive cross-examination by the defense exposed crippling inconsistencies across every key detail of her account. These pervasive contradictions ultimately led the prosecution to decline to present any further evidence against the two men, resulting in their immediate release from legal jeopardy.
The case had already been delayed multiple times over the nine years it moved through the justice system, often due to witness unavailability. Rhoden was represented by attorneys Christopher Townsend and Chadwick Berry, while Gordon was defended by King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie and Sayeed Bernard. Both defendants expressed profound relief at the ruling, after spending nine years fighting the murder charges that hung over their heads.
In an interview with the Jamaica Observer following the decision, Champagnie shared that Gordon told his legal team, “I can finally continue my life, and I am eternally grateful to you and Mr Bernard. Thank you very much.” Echoing that sentiment, Rhoden told his attorney Townsend that he felt an overwhelming sense of “free” after the ruling was handed down.
Townsend emphasized the scope of the defense’s work in dismantling the prosecution’s case, telling reporters: “I am glad to announce that we were successful in the defence of Munga and Mad Rhymes. It has been nine long years but Mr Champagnie and myself were able to cross-examine the only witness for the Crown to the point where her credibility fell down significantly and the prosecution threw in the towel because of the evidence in the state it was in. We were able to demonstrate that the evidence concerning identification was extremely poor.”
Champagnie detailed the critical contradictions that arose during cross-examination, noting that the witness’s account did not hold up to scrutiny when tested against official court records. For example, the witness initially denied that she had previously testified she hid behind two barrels to watch the shooting. When confronted with the official transcript of her earlier testimony, she claimed she had been tricked into giving that statement and did not understand the question when she originally answered. She also admitted under questioning that key portions of her original statement to police were untrue.
The witness’s original account to law enforcement claimed she had been attending a local party, drank multiple Heineken beers, and stepped away to urinate when she witnessed the shooting. When questioned, however, she could not give a consistent answer about how many beers she had consumed: her court testimony claimed she only had one, conflicting with her original statement that she had “a lot” of Heinekens that night.
Additional inconsistencies emerged around the timeline of her statement to police: she admitted she never mentioned the shooting to any of the friends she was with that night, and waited a full 14 days after the killing to give law enforcement a formal statement. She only came forward after encountering a grieving relative of Gordon a week after the shooting, she told the court.
Her account of the shooting itself was also riddled with contradictions that differed from her original police statement. She told the court that while relieving herself, she saw Campbell ride by on a bicycle, before Gordon grabbed him by the back of the neck. She claimed Rhoden then approached Campbell holding an object she later identified as a handgun, struck Campbell in the head with it, and fired the first shots. She alleged Rhoden then passed the weapon to Gordon, who fired additional shots that killed Campbell.
When questioned about how she could see the attack, which took place in a dark passage, she claimed street light from nearby Molynes Road reflected into the walkway, giving her enough visibility to identify both men. She said she saw Rhoden’s back, which she was able to identify because she already knew him, and that he was wearing all black. She claimed she saw the right side of Gordon’s body, which was wearing a blue merino shirt and light blue jeans. After the shooting, she told the court she panicked, pulled up her clothing, ran to her car and drove straight home, staying inside her house out of shock before coming forward weeks later.
The dramatic collapse of the case after nine years of legal process brings an end to a high-profile prosecution that highlighted persistent issues with witness reliability in Jamaican criminal courts, and the heavy toll that prolonged legal proceedings take on accused individuals who have not been convicted.