Cooler heads prevailed yesterday as the trial of a man arrested as part of Operation Cleansweep continued in Magistrates' Court with the accused taking the stand.

O'Shane Darrell, 23, of Cochrane Lane, Sandys Parish, is charged with aiding and abetting another man, not before the court, in supplying heroin on April 9 at Broome Street, Sandys.

Crown counsel Wilhelm Bourne said Darrell was involved in a hand-to-hand drug transaction that led to the supplying of the drug to undercover US Drug Enforcement Agent Doug Treasurer.

Mr. Bourne and Darrell's lawyer, Sen. Lawrence Scott, were expected to make closing submissions yesterday. But Sen. Scott said he wanted to put his client on the stand in his own defence, a change from Wednesday when he said Darrell would not testify.

Darrell said he recalled a question-and-answer session with Police at Hamilton Station on June 12.

He said he remembered viewing the tape which he acknowledged was the same one played in court.

Darrell also testified that at the time of the Police interview he told the officer the transaction did not involve heroin.

"He passed me cannabis,'' he said.

And during cross-examination by Mr. Bourne, Darrell maintained this.

But Mr. Bourne argued that the man may have given Darrell cannabis, but he did not give it to him at the time that Mr. Treasurer was given the drug.

Mr. Bourne asked to see the videotape which showed Darrell and the other man huddled together passing an object.

It was not clear what the object was, but Mr. Bourne contended it was the heroin.

"I put it to you that's not a transaction involving cannabis,'' he told Darrell, who replied: "How do you know that?'' Mr. Bourne told Darrell it was the Crown's position that he was assisting the other man in a drug transaction to the undercover agent.

"You and that man were sorting the heroin,'' he said.

But Darrell maintained it was not heroin.

He also claimed Mr. Treasurer could not have seen the interaction between the two because his attention was taken away by a third man who was seen on the tape walking toward the agent and then talking with him.

But Mr. Bourne said Darrell's testimony was not supported by the videotape.

After Darrell denied this, Sen. Scott asked him if the statement he made to Police in June was a truthful one.

Sen. Scott then asked to have the statement submitted as evidence in the case.

But Mr. Bourne objected, saying it was not signed by Darrell.

Magistrate Edward King agreed with the objection, saying without the signature of Darrell it was just a piece of paper adding: "...That piece of paper couldn't light a fire in hell.'' Mr. King then asked Darrell if he twisted up something and gave it to the man and if so, what did the man do with it.

"He rolled it up and we smoked it,'' Darrell said. But he admitted that was not shown on the videotape.

As the videotape showing part of the transaction between Darrell and the man played, Mr. King asked Darrell to watch and tell him what happened to the item after he placed it in the man's hand.

Darrell viewed the tape and then said: "The man put it in his left hand.'' Mr. King told Darrell that would be the last question he would ask him and then he allowed Mr. Bourne to make his final submission.

Mr. Bourne said the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darrell should be convicted of the crime.

He said Darrell acted with full knowledge of the transaction in question and openly assisted the man with the supply of heroin to Mr. Treasurer.

He said the testimony of the officers was not challenged by the defence. And he added that the claim the transaction involved cannabis was a late attempt to confuse the case.

"Witnesses for the Crown told the truth and their evidence on the main was unchallenged,'' Mr. Bourne said.

But Sen. Scott noted that the most important piece of evidence was the videotape shot by Det. Con. Simon Payne. And he recalled that Det. Con. Payne stated he could not say what was passed.

Sen. Scott also called into question what Mr. Treasurer said he saw. He said he was not suggesting the agent was lying, but rather he was mistaken.

"He said the jacket was dark blue and not black,'' Sen. Scott pointed out.

"We say he could have been confused about what he received in that particular transaction. Put on top of that the fact the defendant said it was cannabis.'' Sen. Scott claimed his client's testimony was as truthful as that of the prosecution witnesses.

"The prosecution wants us to believe the hand-to-hand transaction was drugs, but we can't say that from the video presentation,'' he said, adding that a third man was seen holding a conversation with the agent which took his concentration away from Darrell and the other man.

But Mr. King said he could clearly see the whole transaction in the video.

Sen. Scott, however, countered that Mr. King could not have seen the whole thing because of a cab that came into view during a part of the transaction.

Mr. King argued that he saw the man shaking something into Darrell's hand.

Sen. Scott replied the motion could have been the shaking out of "herb'' into a "spliff''.

Sen. Scott ended by stating that his client admitted to passing cannabis to the man and he said there was no grounds for a case of aiding and abetting.

Mr. King set judgment for August 25.