THE prosecution in the murder trial of Molemo "Jub Jub" Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala has accused the defence attorneys of making "absurd and insensitive" claims to defend their clients.
Prosecutor Raymond Mathenjwa was responding to closing arguments by defence attorneys Ike Motloung representing Maarohanye and Mlugiseleli Soviti for Tshabalala.
Mathenjwa accused the pair of being reckless and murderous when they were allegedly drag racing in their Mini Coopers on Mdlalose Street before crashing into six schoolchildren on March 8 2010.
Maarohanye and Tshabalala are on trial on four counts of murder, two of attempted murder, driving under the influence, reckless and negligent driving and failing to check the injuries of victims involved in their accident.
They are alleged to have been drunk and high on cocaine and morphine on that fateful day.
Mathenjwa said the defence could not argue that there was a forensic ambush because the state had laid bare its case and witnesses. He said the defence could have asked for details where they were not clear.
Mathenjwa also referred the court to previous high court judgments in which he dismissed the defence argument that the state was closing loopholes in its case by obtaining second statements from witnesses while the trial had already started.
He asked the magistrate, Brian Nemavhidi, to strike off the roll submissions by the defence that state witnesses had been influenced by the media.
He turned the tables on Motloung's accusation that state witnesses had been coached, saying that Motloung was the one who had "prepared witnesses" and then presented them to the state.
"We rejected them and decided he could lead them and we would cross-examine them," said Mathenjwa, referring to passengers in the two Mini Coopers.
He rejected Motloung's assertion that because a quantitative analysis of the drug content alleged to have been found in Maarohanye's urine samples was not done, the evidence was "trivial" was "absurd".
He said Motloung first presented an argument that the substances might have entered Maarohanye's system through secondary inhalation or intake, but when that story looked weak he argued contamination of evidence and now he says the evidence was trivial.
Mathenjwa said a copy of a video taken by a witness showing the cars moving almost parallel with each other just before the accident was given to the defence, so Motloung's argument of different versions of the video being shown in court and about it "disappearing" was misleading.
The matter has been postponed to October 10 for what is expected to be a long and detailed judgment.
- moengk@sowetan.co.za
Tables turned on Jub Jub lawyers
THE prosecution in the murder trial of Molemo "Jub Jub" Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala has accused the defence attorneys of making "absurd and insensitive" claims to defend their clients.
Prosecutor Raymond Mathenjwa was responding to closing arguments by defence attorneys Ike Motloung representing Maarohanye and Mlugiseleli Soviti for Tshabalala.
Mathenjwa accused the pair of being reckless and murderous when they were allegedly drag racing in their Mini Coopers on Mdlalose Street before crashing into six schoolchildren on March 8 2010.
Maarohanye and Tshabalala are on trial on four counts of murder, two of attempted murder, driving under the influence, reckless and negligent driving and failing to check the injuries of victims involved in their accident.
They are alleged to have been drunk and high on cocaine and morphine on that fateful day.
Mathenjwa said the defence could not argue that there was a forensic ambush because the state had laid bare its case and witnesses. He said the defence could have asked for details where they were not clear.
Mathenjwa also referred the court to previous high court judgments in which he dismissed the defence argument that the state was closing loopholes in its case by obtaining second statements from witnesses while the trial had already started.
He asked the magistrate, Brian Nemavhidi, to strike off the roll submissions by the defence that state witnesses had been influenced by the media.
He turned the tables on Motloung's accusation that state witnesses had been coached, saying that Motloung was the one who had "prepared witnesses" and then presented them to the state.
"We rejected them and decided he could lead them and we would cross-examine them," said Mathenjwa, referring to passengers in the two Mini Coopers.
He rejected Motloung's assertion that because a quantitative analysis of the drug content alleged to have been found in Maarohanye's urine samples was not done, the evidence was "trivial" was "absurd".
He said Motloung first presented an argument that the substances might have entered Maarohanye's system through secondary inhalation or intake, but when that story looked weak he argued contamination of evidence and now he says the evidence was trivial.
Mathenjwa said a copy of a video taken by a witness showing the cars moving almost parallel with each other just before the accident was given to the defence, so Motloung's argument of different versions of the video being shown in court and about it "disappearing" was misleading.
The matter has been postponed to October 10 for what is expected to be a long and detailed judgment.
- moengk@sowetan.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos