Bullet grazed victim’s head as he tried to escape gunman, court hears – The Royal Gazette | Bermuda News, Business, Sports, Events, & Community

Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Bullet grazed victim’s head as he tried to escape gunman, court hears

A gunman fired multiple shots at a man in a daylight attack on Court Street on Mother’s Day, a Supreme Court jury heard yesterday.

Prosecutor Karen King said the victim escaped to Hamilton Police Station, but one bullet grazed his head.

Jahmico Trott, 33, has denied charges of attempted murder, using a firearm to commit an indictable offence and carrying a firearm in connection with the incident on May 14, 2017.

He also denied allegations that he intimidated and attempted to corrupt a witness.

As his trial began in Supreme Court yesterday, Ms King told the court that on the afternoon of May 14, 2017, the victim was relaxing in his cousin’s Court Street, Pembroke apartment when they heard a knock on the door.

Ms King said: “The Crown says that as they went to look out, they saw Mr Trott.

“He had a bandana covering the lower part of his face.”

She said the victim and his cousin fled the apartment and onto Court Street with the gunman in pursuit.

The victim got onto his motorcycle, which was parked nearby, but the vehicle did not start.

Ms King said: “Another man held the victim, and Mr Trott was then able to try to fire at least four shots at him. One grazed his head.”

Despite the minor injury, the victim was able to break free and ran to the safety of Hamilton Police Station.

Ms King said that Mr Trott later spoke to a witness in the case while they were both held at Westgate Correctional Facility.

During the conversation, she said the defendant tried to convince the witness to recant his testimony and threatened the witness’s family.

The court also heard evidence from a forensics officer who analysed a motorcycle found near the intersection of Union Street and Elliot Street shortly after the shooting.

The officer said she tested both handlebars for both DNA and gunshot residue and removed several suspected fingerprints.

Under cross examination by Mr Trott, who is representing himself in the trial, the officer said no fingerprints were recovered and, to her knowledge, the defendant’s DNA was not found on the vehicle.

However she accepted that an individual wearing gloves would not leave fingerprints, and would be less likely to leave DNA.

The officer told the court that she had photographed two cars the day after the shooting – one of which had a bullet hole in the driver’s side bumper and the second had what appeared to be a blood stain on the door.

She told the court a presumptive test on the stain tested positive for blood and a sample was collected, but it was never sent overseas for DNA testing.

The trial continues.