Jurors heard the final arguments yesterday in a death by careless driving case, as the trial of former senator Curtis Richardson came to a close.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, argued that all evidence pointed towards Mr Richardson striking and killing football star Marco Warren with his taxi. He called all arguments to the contrary either flimsy or untruthful.

Meanwhile, Victoria Greening, for the defence, said the Crown had failed to fully prove her client had been careless behind the wheel.

She also suggested the case against him was fuelled by a desire to hold someone responsible — a desire she further urged the jury not to follow.

Mr Richardson, 51, denies causing Mr Warren’s death by driving without due care and attention.

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

Mr Mahoney highlighted the report from collision expert Glenn Luben, who examined the area, vehicles and Mr Warren’s body.

He pointed out Mr Luben’s claim that the roadside trash receptacle Mr Richardson described seeing in his statement could not have been sighted from his lane.

Mr Mahoney further pointed to CCTV footage, which showed clear lighting in the area and vehicles with working headlights.

The prosecutor noted marks on Mr Warren’s body that were said to match the undercarriage of Mr Richardson’s taxi.

Mr Mahoney characterised the defendant’s witness statement as “a litany of lies”.

He further described the defence’s traffic collision witness, Philip Lewis, as unreliable, “flip-flopping” and less accredited than Mr Luben, a university lecturer.

Mr Lewis had testified that in his opinion “there was no contact between the vehicle and the deceased”.

Mr Mahoney said: “Seeing Mr Lewis bobbing and weaving strengthens the prosecution’s case.”

Mr Mahoney recognised that Mr Warren had been intoxicated and unsteady on his feet that night, but refuted the defence’s contention that he had been sitting on the side of the road.

He explained that Mr Warren was only seen falling once and almost immediately got up.

Mr Mahoney added: “This is a time when you can expect people to be out at all hours of the night.

“This is a weekend and a taxi driver, more than anyone else, should be aware that someone could be out.”

Ms Greening said any finding of guilt had to be based off Mr Richardson being a less than competent driver — a threshold she said was not met by the Crown.

She added: “The Crown must prove the steps in between what was seen, and that’s exactly where the inconsistencies lie.”

Ms Greening suggested to the jury that her client was being used as a scapegoat to blame for the tragic death of a beloved figure.

She further suggested the police were concerned about their image if they did not prosecute, and had hired Mr Luben to build a case on her client.

Ms Greening highlighted the police’s use of phrases such as “assist in proving” guilt and “match the injuries on the body to the undercarriage of the suspect’s car” when e-mailing Mr Luben.

She further pointed to what she called flaws in the expert’s analysis.

Ms Greening said: “The defence does not ask you to disregard his evidence and we do not even say that everything he did was wrong.”

However, she added: “Just because he is an expert heard by the police doesn’t mean everything he did was right.

“An expert can’t change an idea into a fact just by saying it with confidence.”

Ms Greening pointed to Mr Lewis’s evidence that people’s reaction times were 4.5 seconds at night, compared with 1.5 seconds during the day.

The defence ultimately told the jury they had to be certain of her client’s guilt to convict him.

Ms Greening said: “Your verdict is not a verdict on whether Mr Warren’s death was a tragedy — that is a given.

“Your verdict is not a verdict on whether Mr Richardson wishes it didn’t happen. It is the point that you believe Mr Richardson drove below the standard of a competent and capable driver.”

She added: “If you are not sure Mr Richardson is responsible for the critical injury, you must acquit.”

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