The Jamaican Queen?s Counsel representing a local man on cocaine possession charges suggested yesterday to a Supreme Court jury that his client?s confession was obtained by ?improper means?.

Frank Phipps QC, representing Oshane Eugene Darrell, hammered at Det. Con. Kirly Mitchell?s handling of Darrell?s questioning on March 12, 2003.

Det. Con Mitchell strongly denied tricking Darrell into making statements by suggesting that his girlfriend would not have to appear in court.

The trial of Darrell and Jennifer Mederios, both of 23 Seawall Drive, shifted into high gear yesterday after lengthy breaks for legal arguments since its start on April 21.

Det. Con. Mitchell read statements made by Darrell in which he said, ?Whatever the Police say they found, it?s mine? ? and that Mederios had nothing to do with the cocaine and that it was for his personal use.

The couple deny possessing a large amount of cocaine with the intent to supply, as well as possessing drug paraphernalia on November 22, 2002.

Prosecutor Carrington Mahoney has not specified the exact quantity of drugs found in the apartment.

Mederios is represented by lawyer Alan Doughty while Mr. Mahoney is being assisted by Cindy Clarke.

During Darrell?s second interview on March 12 ? which he refused to sign ? he was questioned about the amount of cocaine he had on his premises, the date he bought it and the length of time it was in his residence.

Darrell said he could not remember. ?I suffered a head injury and my memory is not all that,? he said.

When Police asked him about his drug history, Darrell said he used cocaine ?mostly everyday?.

?I used to be a closet smoker and after this the whole world will know,? he said.

Det. Con. Mitchell was asked on cross-examination about his suspension from the narcotics department due to allegations of assault against a man later convicted of importing cannabis.

Det. Con. Mitchell is currently awaiting a trial in relation to former Dunkley?s Dairy employee Michael Madeiros? drug trial.

Mr. Phipps, his voice rising, asked of the Madeiros investigation: ?You used improper means to obtain a confession??

Det. Con. Mitchell denied that, saying he was under investigation due to ?false allegations?.

He also denied strong suggestions by Mr. Phipps that he induced Darrell to make a confession in exchange for Mederios being released on bail.

Det. Con. Mitchell told the court that Mederios and Darrell presented themselves at the Hamilton Police Station on March 12, 2003 to renew their respective bails.

At that time, Mederios received a notice to attend court on March 19 and left the station. She found the bail notice had been changed indicating she was to appear at Hamilton Police Station on April 10 ? which she initialled ? instead of March 19.

A few hours later, she was summoned back. Det. Con. Mitchell told the court that he had ?made a mistake with the date? and provided Mederios with a new bail notice which told her to appear in court on March 19.

But the detective adamantly denied telling Mederios her situation might change if Darrell took full responsibility.

When Mr. Phipps asked him if he said ?this is for you to return to court unless Darrell takes full responsibility?, Det. Con Mitchell said: ?That is incorrect. I have no power to do that.?

He also said he ?did not recall? Mederios asking him to explain the bail form.

Mr. Phipps suggested that because Darrell agreed to take responsibility Det. Con. Mitchell changed the bail notice for Mederios from appearing before court on March 19 to appearing at the Police station on April 10.

In response, Det. Con. Mitchell said: ?I did not make any promises to Mr. Darrell. I made a mistake (with the date).?

Det. Con. Mitchell repeatedly denied Mr. Phipps? version of events and said Darrell had approached him about making a statement.

When Mr. Phipps suggested that the only reason Mederios was called back to the Police station was because he was unhappy with the statements Darrell had provided, Det. Con. Mitchell said ?that is incorrect?.

Det. Con. Mitchell also read-in Mederios? statements of November 24 and 25, 2002 in which she told Police: ?I didn?t know anything about it (drugs). It had to be his.?

She also told Police that $6,000 in US denominations found in a C-Travel folder was spending money for a shopping trip she planned to take in December, 2002.

While approximately $1,000 ? found in a wallet ? had been given to her by relatives, for her daughter who was born in October, 2002, she continued.

Turning to the balance of the money that Police seized, Mederios said she did not know where it came from, but admitted that she had seen it in a dresser drawer.

She detailed for Police her work history and how much money she earned and her whereabouts that evening.

Det. Con. Mitchell told the jury that Police found a pocket scale with traces of cocaine and an envelope containing crack cocaine in the kitchen. The envelope was addressed to Oshane Darrell.

The downstairs bathroom was nearly overlooked by detectives in their initial search, however.

Drug-sniffing dog handler Sgt. Brian Mello admitted that he had missed the bathroom, saying ?the front door opens inwards, partially covering the bathroom door and I didn?t realise there was another room in the house?. He was called back into the apartment.

His dog found a large Ziploc bag containing eight small ?twists? under a bathroom sink. No fingerprints were found on the bags. The ?twists? contained cocaine.

During the search, the Police also seized approximately $19,000 in US and Bermudian currency.

But Sgt. Mello admitted under cross-examination that he wrote ?not one word about going back to the bathroom? in his original written statement.

The detective revealed this oversight was corrected just last week when he was called back to the DPP?s office for a general meeting and revealed it to prosecutors.

?They never asked to put it in writing?? Mr. Phipps asked.

It was also revealed yesterday that the digital scale and the envelope containing crack cocaine were not photographed ? but at Hamilton Police station three days later.

The trial will resume this morning in Supreme Court.