Security guard walks free of gun charges despite DNA evidence
Published:Sunday | March 23, 2025 | 9:51 PMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
A St Andrew security guard, from whose car an illegal gun was seized, was freed of gun charges in the Gun Court on Friday despite his DNA being found on the weapon.
Tryon Cornwall, 41, was found not guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon by Justice Trecia Shelly Hutchinson who, after considering the evidence presented and the inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, noted that she could not rule out the possibility of a second-hand transfer of DNA.
Cornwall, who had been in custody since the discovery of the weapon, was arrested on October 11, 2023, after a joint military team, acting on information, went to his premises in search of a weapon believed to be in his car.
Cornwall, who was asleep when the team arrived at his home in Harbour View, St Andrew, initially denied ownership of a grey Toyota Wish, which was parked outside his home. However, one of the police officers pointed out that checks made on the car’s licence plate showed that he was the owner.
After checking on the car, Cornwall admitted that he was the owner, but that he was unaware that he had the car, as he had sent it to his mechanic for repairs and did not know that it had been returned.
The police then requested a search of the vehicle, but Cornwall said he did not have the key and would need to retrieve it. He then proceeded to walk briskly away.
Two police officers followed Cornwall, who reportedly started acting in a boisterous manner and attempted to resist.
He was taken to the Elletson Road Police Station, where the car was searched in his presence. A chrome and black weapon, along with seven 9mm rounds, was retrieved from the glove compartment.
When cautioned, Cornwall told the police, “I don’t know anything about that firearm. Someone a try frame me.”
INCONSISTENCIES CONSIDERED
Attorney-at-law Paul Gentles, who represented Cornwall, said that in making her decision, the judge considered the inconsistencies in the evidence. He highlighted that the licence plate number of the car, from which the police say they recovered the weapon, did not match his client’s actual licence plate number. Additionally, the person who witnessed the swabbing of his client gave the court a different name instead of his client’s.
Gentles also questioned the chain of custody process during cross-examination and suggested that the proper protocols were not followed. He stated that the Crown did not provide any evidence to show that these protocols had been adhered to.
“For example, if an officer fails to use proper gloves and protective gear when collecting or processing items, they may inadvertently transfer DNA residue from one individual to another. It was our submission that these protocols were not followed. Therefore, when they handled my client in the absence of gloves and retrieved the exhibit, they could have easily transferred his DNA from him to their hands, and from their hands to the exhibit, which came back with a positive DNA match,” he said.
Gentles pointed out that the judge could not rule out this possibility, as the expert witness from the State forensic laboratory had testified that it was possible for DNA to be transferred in such a manner when the process is not done properly.
“The secondary transfer is a very real possibility,” Gentles continued. “In fact, the expert herself confirmed that secondary transfer is a live possibility and a real situation. These are things that defence attorneys look out for, especially in firearm cases, which now carry a higher penalty.”
He added: “We must properly and forensically evaluate all elements of the case, from the chain of custody to handling, to ensure that the correct procedures are followed. If they are not, it is possible that the accused may well not be guilty as suggested.”
Furthermore, Gentles noted that, from the outset, his client’s defence has been that he was being framed.
“We’re not pointing any fingers at this point, but he has consistently stated that this firearm does not belong to him, that he did not place it there, and that this is a set-up,” he concluded.