DPP Takes Oscar Selgado Acquittal Fight to Caribbean Court of Justice

Attorney Oscar Selgado’s court battle continued today, with the prosecution asking the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCj) to overturn his acquittal for abetment of murder. Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl-Lynn Vidal appeared before the regional court in Saint Lucia this morning to challenge the ruling that cleared Selgado and set aside his ten-year prison sentence.

Selgado was convicted in March 2024 and sentenced that June. Prosecutors alleged that he had asked Giovanni Ramirez to kill Marilyn Barnes, a former client who had filed a complaint against him with the General Legal Council. The prosecution’s case was that Selgado wanted to stop Barnes from testifying at a disciplinary hearing that could have led to his disbarment.

But Ramirez did not testify at the trial, citing fears for his life. The trial judge admitted his written statement into evidence, leaving the defence without an opportunity to question him.  Last December, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and entered an acquittal after finding that Selgado had not received a fair trial. The DPP is now challenging that decision. Here is an excerpt of Vidal’s submission this morning.

Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, Director of Public Prosecution: “This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the conviction of the respondent for the offense of abetment of murder. It is brought with special leave of the court given on the 17th of April, 2026. The grounds of appeal that leave was given to argue are one; that the court below misunderstood and misapplied the principles set out by this court in its decision in Jaffet Bennett against the Queen, regarding the test for the admissibility of hearsay statements and as a result, erred in finding that the learned trial judge had wrongly admitted the hearsay statement of Giovanni Ramirez. Two; that the court below misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of evidence being more prejudicial than probative. And so, erred in finding that the statement of Giovanni Ramirez was inadmissible on that basis. And three; that the court below improperly interfered with findings of fact made by the trial judge and substituted its own view without any rationale for so doing. I propose your honors to give an exceedingly brief summary of the facts, then to go directly to the findings of the court below that we take issue with on this appeal, then to go to the judgment of this court in Jaffet Bennett against the Queen, which really is the base of this appeal, and then to seek to demonstrate to this court why we believe that the court below erred. The Crown’s case at trial was that the respondent, who is an attorney at law, solicited Giovanni Ramirez to kill a former client who had made a complaint against him to the General Legal Counsel. Giovanni Ramirez gave a statement to the police and handed over to the police recordings which he had made of his meetings with the respondent. The making of the statement to the police was recorded both audio and video in the presence of a justice of the peace. And the statement and the recordings were tendered at the preliminary inquiry. The recordings went missing from the court file prior to the trial and that would be the recordings of the statement that Giovanni Ramirez had given to the police and the recordings that he had handed over to the police of the meetings between him and the respondent. Further, the Crown’s main witness, Giovanni Ramirez, informed that he would not testify because he had been threatened by the respondent that he would have him killed if he did so and he was in fear for his life. The crown applied at trial to have the statement of Giovanni Ramirez admitted under section 105 of the Evidence Act which is our witness in fair provision, and for secondary evidence of the recordings provided Giovanni Ramirez to be admitted through the officers who had listened to them at the beginning of the investigation.”

Representing Selgado was attorney Arthur Saldivar. During his response to the prosecution’s appeal, Saldivar spoke about discrediting judicial determination. Here is a portion of his address to the court.

Arthur Saldivar, Attorney: “She did testify and she testified to the fact that the complaint against Mr. Selgado did not have anything to do with any sexual assault. I think she made that very clear, which brings me to the actual hearsay statement of Giovani Ramirez and his reliability. Ramirez is saying that Oscar Salgado informed him that the complaint against him at the JLC involved a sexual assault, an issue of pedophilia, which from the onset of the trial was presented as a central issue. In fact, the prosecution made it very clear that they wanted the issue of a confrontation between Marylyn Barnes and the accused to be put front and center as an apart of the trial to establish motive. But when Marilyn Barnes came to testify, she did not in any way state that she knew of what she learned of this supposed sexual encounter between the accused and a minor prior to making the complaint at the JLC. But Marilyn Barnes knew. And if Marilyn Barnes could know, and certainly to have a confrontation which she would not have known this from the accused. Likewise, Giovani Ramirez could have also known outside of the purview of the accused. It did not necessarily have to come from the accused. That information was not exclusive to the accused as Marilyn Barnes’ testimony would have borne out.”

The CCJ is being asked to decide whether the Court of Appeal erred in its ruling on Ramirez’s statement and its decision to acquit Selgado