Last week, we told you about the Gary Seawell extradition case which was heard before Chief Magistrate Anne Marie Smith. That's when his attorney, Arthur Saldivar, asked the court not to accept at least 10 of the documents exhibited as evidence against his client because the Notaries Public who signed them, had already expired years before the documents were introduced to the court.
The Government Crown Council, Illiana Swift was given until today to respond to that charge.
But, turns out she didn't really need to respond because Saldivar withdrew those submissions which he made to the court and introduced new arguments. His new position is that the depositions or affidavits before the court, had no oaths on them, and so, held no legal ground for the court to consider.
He argued that, the documents weren't properly authenticated, and therefore, there is nothing before the court that constitutes any evidence against his client.
Wow!
Today when he exited court, the media asked him to explain how he got to that rather dramatic conclusion. Here's how he put it:
Arthur Saldivar - Attorney for Gary Seawell
"The main basis of the argument was that the documents presented were not what they purported to be because it did not bear on code, which is the requirement by law to have the maker of the statement appreciate the fact that you're under the duty to tell the truth - that it would not be properly characterized as depositions or affidavits."
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Chief Magistrate decided to adjourn the matter to October 21, when she will deliver her decision.
Email
Print