A Somerset man charged with possession of a gun and ammunition gave a version of events that was “like a Hollywood movie”, a prosecutor said.

Attorney Adley Duncan made the claim when he gave his final address to the jury in the trial of Jomari Gooden yesterday.

Mr Gooden, 25, has pleaded not guilty to four counts ― possession of a firearm and of ammunition, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

Mr Gooden had testified that he inadvertently obtained the loaded weapon during a struggle with a drug dealer in the early hours of September 23 last year.

He was later arrested by police after they saw him crossing Middle Road near Hog Bay Park in Sandys and jumping over a wall.

The loaded gun, which the court heard Mr Gooden had in the waistband of his sweatpants, was not discovered until he had been taken to Hamilton Police Station.

Mr Duncan told the jury: “Having a gun on you can have some serious consequences so if you’re found with a gun on you, you have to come up with a reason.

“The reason was like a Hollywood movie, but I think it was an insult to our collective intelligence.”

Mr Duncan said that guns were “revolting and ugly” and that any innocent person who inadvertently came into possession of one would want to dispose of it as soon as possible.

Passing the weapon that Mr Gooden had to the jury, the prosecutor invited members to each hold the gun and feel its weight. Several jurors declined.

Mr Duncan said that much of the Crown’s evidence was captured by police body cameras, and that officers had no reason to lie ― but that Mr Gooden did.

He said: “Actions speak louder than words.

“Decent people take people at their word. But people can exploit that decency and take advantage of your honesty by lying to you.”

Marc Daniels, representing Mr Gooden, disagreed.

He told the jury that the prosecution could provide no evidence to contradict his client’s version of how he came to be in possession of the gun.

He also said that Mr Gooden’s explanation as to why he did not tell police that he was armed ― because he was exhausted, in pain and could not breathe after they had twice used a Taser on him ― was reasonable and believable.

Describing the Crown’s case as “a presentation of facts in reverse”, Mr Daniels said: “The police didn’t know why Mr Gooden was in possession of a firearm.

“The Crown had no clue as to the circumstances. All they had was suspicion. There’s nothing to counter what he has said.”

Mr Daniels highlighted what he saw as a contradiction in the prosecution’s case.

The Crown had argued that Mr Gooden was too intoxicated to disarm a robber, but also insisted that he was strong enough to put up a fight when being arrested. “It can’t cut both ways,” he said.

The trial continues and Puisne Judge Alan Richards is expected to deliver his directions on Monday before sending out the jury to consider its verdict.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case