Defence lawyers attacked the evidence against two men accused of attempted murder yesterday, arguing that the evidence before the courts supports their innocence.

While prosecutors have alleged that 26-year-old Devon Hewey was the rider of the motorcycle when Lavon Thomas was shot at outside Shine’s Nightclub, the victim said Mr Hewey was not the one operating the vehicle.

Defence lawyer Kamal Worrell, representing Mr Hewey, told the Supreme Court during his closing address: “I asked him up front and directly, ‘Was Mr Hewey on that bike?’ He said no. He didn’t say, ‘I think’. He didn’t say, ‘Maybe not.’ His answer was direct, affirmative and without hesitation: No.

“There you have it; that’s the evidence. Even if the circumstantial case evidence against Mr Hewey amounted to anything concrete, this is the most concrete evidence in the entire case.”

Mr Hewey and Cervio Cox, 31, have denied charges of attempting to murder Mr Thomas early on the morning of March 24, 2012, and using a firearm.

The court had heard during the Supreme Court trial that Mr Thomas was leaving Shine’s Nightclub when two men on a motorcycle drove past and opened fire. Mr Thomas ran to the other side of the road and down a set of stairs to Front Street while gunshots shattered two windows in Seon Place.

The accused allegedly attempted to leave the scene by racing up Cavendish Road, but turned around upon seeing a marked police car. They then sped back to Spurling Hill and on to East Broadway, with the police in pursuit.

The officers lost sight of the suspects near Berry Hill, but minutes later found an abandoned motorcycle in Botanical Gardens with its engine still warm and plastic wrapped around its licence plate.

The Crown alleges that Mr Hewey was riding the motorcycle involved in the attack, while Julian Washington, who was acquitted of the shooting in a previous trial, was the gunman. It argued that Sergio Robinson was the intended target of the attack and that Mr Thomas was shot at in a case of mistaken identity. While prosecutors said that Mr Cox was not directly involved in the shooting, he had assisted the alleged perpetrators both before and after the attack, guiding Mr Hewey to Botanical Gardens before speeding him away from the area before officers arrived at the scene.

In his closing address, prosecutor Carrington Mahoney said that DNA on the motorcycle’s handlebars had been linked to Mr Hewey, while Mr Cox’s DNA was found on the plastic used to obscure the licence plate.

Mr Hewey has said the bike found at the Botanical Gardens belonged to him, but claimed that it was loaned to a friend when the shooting took place. It was also suggested that the plastic with Mr Cox’s DNA may have been taken from a weight bench that he had contact with.

Making his closing address, Mr Worrell, however, said that while the Crown’s arguments required the evidence to be twisted or ignored, his client’s version of events fit the evidence before the court.

“The evidence from the Crown’s case shows indisputably that Mr Hewey was not the rider,” Mr Worrell said. “It’s not a matter for speculation. It’s direct testimony from the eyewitness. All the other evidence is consistent with that.”

Defence lawyer Charles Richardson, representing Mr Cox, however, said that version of events made little sense in light of the evidence, noting that the bike that Mr Mahoney suggested was ridden by Mr Cox passed Crow Lane almost a minute before the shooters.

“How does that person know the plan has changed? How does he know?” he asked. “Was he telepathic? Was he Mr Spock? That was probably just someone coming home.”

He also noted that while police arrived at Botanical Gardens while the bike’s engine was still warm, no one had reported seeing or hearing any vehicles leaving the property.

Mr Richardson said also that while his client’s DNA was found on the plastic covering the seized vehicle’s licence plate, it did not mean that he had tied the knot, only that he had come into contact with the bag at some point in time.

“Where’s the evidence that it didn’t happen that way,” he said. “Even your trained police officers say it could have happened that way.”

The lawyer also said that while gunshot residue (GSR) component particles were found on several clothing items at Mr Cox’s home three weeks after the shooting, no actual GSR was recovered, meaning that it could have come from sources other than the discharge of a firearm.

The trial continues today.