As the Joshlin Smith trial enters Day 28, courtroom proceedings are expected to focus on closing arguments and a possible ruling in the trial-within-a-trial that has dominated recent sessions.
What to expect from the Joshlin Smith trial on Day 28
This legal process, known formally as a “voir dire”, is being held to determine whether statements made by accused Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn on 4 and 5 March 2024 were obtained legally—or, as their defence teams claim, through torture and coercion.
Readers can follow the live trial coverage today as the courtroom battle intensifies.
Recap of Day 27: Key testimonies and new revelations
On Day 27, the session was mostly procedural but pivotal, with the state confirming that it had concluded its evidence in this phase.
The defence, led by Advocates Fannie Harmse and Nobahle Mkabayi, opted not to call any witnesses of their own. Instead, they moved directly to argument, signalling their intent to rest their case on inconsistencies, omissions, and alleged procedural missteps by the police.
Advocate Harmse, acting for Appollis, requested time to prepare closing arguments, asking for an extension until Friday. He signalled that his argument would lean on how Appollis was allegedly misled during his interaction with police, the absence of formal warnings, and the use of indirect tactics such as psychological pressure.
Judge Nathan Erasmus approved the request, confirming the hearing of final arguments will begin on Day 28.
Much of Day 27 also focused on confirming whether any new witness or video evidence would still be introduced. The state indicated that the pointing-out evidence, previously expected to strengthen its case, would not be submitted. Judge Erasmus, still managing a persistent cough, expressed disappointment in the overall handling of the evidence, noting missing transcripts, poorly managed recordings, and delayed witness presentations as factors that could undermine the strength of the confessions.
Meanwhile, the defence has continued to assert that both Jacquen and Steveno were mistreated—claims that police witnesses have denied under oath.
Medical records presented during the proceedings showed soft tissue injuries but no conclusive proof of assault, leaving the court to weigh circumstantial context over definitive evidence.
Judge Erasmus made it clear that this trial-within-a-trial is now approaching its final stretch.
What remains is for each legal team to present its argument, after which the court will decide whether the disputed statements may be used when the main trial resumes.
The judge has not given a timeline for his ruling, but the decision is expected to carry significant weight in the outcome of the broader case.
