The jury in a Supreme Court trial heard today how a former senator insisted to police that he did not hit a former football club captain with his car.

Calvin Smith, a former police officer, told the court he took a voluntary statement from Curtis Richardson, in which he described finding Marco Warren on the side of the road.

In the statement, read out in court, Mr Richardson said: “I learnt from the news who the man was and it was a very sad situation.

“However, I can say with certainty that my car never came into contact with the man as he was laying in the street, and I do not believe the car travelling behind me made contact with him either.”

Mr Richardson has pleaded not guilty to causing Mr Warren’s death by driving without due care and attention.

The incident was alleged to have happened in the early hours of May 14, 2023, near the intersection of North Shore Road and Trinity Church Road in Hamilton Parish.

In his statement, Mr Richardson said he had been driving along North Shore Road and saw “what I can only describe as a trash can” near Trinity Church Road.

He said he made a “sharp turn to the right” to avoid it and stopped at Bay Corner, where the driver of a private car pulled up next to him.

Mr Richardson said: “I asked if he saw the object on the side of the road and he said he didn’t.

“He said he saw me dodge it, so he did the same.

“He asked, ‘Was it a body?’ and I said, ‘What?’”

Mr Richardson said he turned around, saw the body and attempted to flag someone down for help.

He added: “He sounded like he was snoring from the way he was breathing.

“Once he got to the ambulance, he seemed to be breathing a little better.”

Acting Inspector Courtney Simmons, with the Vulnerable Persons Unit, led the jury through the 911 call Mr Richardson placed shortly after finding Mr Warren.

Ms Simmons told the court she had been tasked with finding Mr Richardson’s call and reviewing it.

In it, Mr Richardson could be heard telling dispatchers that Mr Warren was breathing — but admitted: “It looks pretty bad.”

He added: “I came across in my taxi. I saw something and I swerved over.”

Chaquita Simmons, a police expert on traffic collisions, said she examined the scene, which had “good driving conditions” and “a noticeable centre yellow line”.

Ms Simmons said that she examined Mr Warren’s clothing after his autopsy, noting dirt marks near the sweatshirt’s pockets that might have been tyre marks.

She added that Mr Warren’s face had “abrasions”, and that the body also had marks.

Acting Sergeant Jewel Hayward completed his testimony from last week, which included post-mortem photographs of Mr Warren and his clothes.

Today, Mr Hayward showed video inspections of Mr Richardson’s car and a private car also at the scene.

Jurors further saw video footage of the crash scene from the eastbound and westbound lanes.

While examining the eastbound lane, Mr Hayward focused on a “red discolouration” on the road that he said caught his eye.

He filmed the area with an iPhone 13 Pro, which he said gave off “a soft light” while recording.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, made note of trash cans in the eastbound lane and asked if he could see them while filming.

Mr Hayward said he could see the cans from the eastbound lane, although not well, but they were clearly visible from the westbound lane.

During cross-examination, he added that he filmed the videos on foot.

Victoria Greening, for the defence, asked him what visibility was like without the light of his phone.

Mr Hayward said: “The light didn’t make a difference.”

She asked him if he was aware of additional streetlights put up in the area later. He said he did not.

Ms Greening asked him if his skill in crime scene recreation involved traffic scenes. He said it did not — but confirmed there were other officers present.

She then asked if he was aware that nothing of “evidential value” was found on Mr Richardson’s taxi. Mr Hayward said he knew, and clarified this meant he was not asked to collect any material.

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case