Following the conclusion of the trial-within-a-trial phase, the Joshlin Smith case will now proceed with renewed focus.
What to expect from the Joshlin Smith trial on Day 32
The judge has ruled that the statements given by Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn on 5 March 2024 are admissible in the main trial. These statements, though not officially labelled as confessions by the judge to avoid perceptions of bias, can now be used against the accused as evidence.
Today, the court expects the State to present its roadmap for how it plans to proceed with the main trial.
This includes clarifying which witnesses it intends to call and outlining the direction of its argument, particularly in light of the now-admitted statements. Judge Nathan Erasmus has emphasised the urgency of finalising the trial, pushing for a concrete plan that ensures swift and efficient proceedings.
Defence attorneys are also expected to respond to the State’s roadmap, either by raising objections or offering their perspectives on how to proceed.
This exchange will likely shape the structure of upcoming testimonies and cross-examinations, setting the tone for the next phase of the trial.
Readers can follow the live trial coverage today as the courtroom battle intensifies.
Recap of Day 31: Key testimonies and new revelations
Day 31 saw the legal teams deliver their closing arguments in the trial-within-a-trial, which assessed whether the statements made by Appollis and Van Rhyn should be admitted into evidence.
Advocate Fannie Harmse, representing Appollis, argued that the State had not proven that proper procedures were followed in detaining his client. He also raised concerns that Appollis may have been tortured into making his statement.
Similarly, Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi, for Van Rhyn, argued that her client had not been read his rights at crucial stages and that post-confession medical examinations were inadequate.
Mkabayi referenced a UK case, R v Collins, to support her claims, which led to a tense exchange with the judge, who criticised her reliance on foreign case law when local precedents were available.
The State countered that experienced investigators followed due process and that the injuries reported by the accused did not indicate torture.
They maintained that the statements were voluntarily made and supported by corroborative testimonies.
In his ruling, Judge Erasmus stated that both statements—Jacquen’s to Colonel Pretorius and Steveno’s to Captain Seekoie—are admissible in the main trial. He refrained from calling them confessions to avoid influencing the broader trial’s outcome.
He also announced that the State must return today with a clear roadmap to ensure timely progression of the case.
