A defence attorney crossed swords with the judge in the murder trial of Everton “Beachy Stout” McDonald and Oscar Barnes on Monday over a decision that the lawyer claimed could heavily impact his client.

During the clash the attorney, Vincent Wellesley, accused Judge Chester Stamp of trying to muzzle him with the aid of Ernest Davis, the senior counsel on the defence team, and stopped just short of labelling the court tyrannical.

McDonald and Barnes are on trial in the Home Circuit Court for the July 20, 2020 murder of McDonald’s second wife Tonia.

Monday’s clash had its foundation in Judge Stamp’s refusal, more than a week ago, of an application made by prosecutors to have the indictment amended in the case. He had ordered the seven-member jury to return a not guilty verdict in relation to McDonald and Barnes on the charge of conspiracy to murder.

Stamp had found that there was no conspiracy between McDonald and Barnes. However, he said that both men have to answer to the murder charge.

At that time, prosecutor Luke Cook attempted to have the indictment amended to reflect that McDonald conspired with another man, Denvalyn “Bubbla” Minott, who in turn conspired with Barnes to kill Tonia. However, Stamp shut down the application made by the prosecutor.

After reviewing his decision to prevent the amendment, Stamp returned on Monday and facilitated the prosecution’s further arguments on why they needed to amend the indictment. Judge Stamp ruled that both men still have a murder case to answer and supported the amendment to the indictment.

That gave rise to Wellesley proposing that he would need to recall police witnesses to help his client’s case, but Stamp shut down the request, saying there had been no circumstances shown by the defence where injustice could result from the amendment.

“The court finds that it has not been shown and that there is no injustice. Granting of the amendment would be more likely to advance the interest of justice. The order is that the amendment is granted in terms of the draft amendment of the indictment February 2024,” Stamp said.

Wellesley, in trying to appeal to Judge Stamp, said “I need to make an application based on your ruling. I need to make an application that the detective sergeant be brought back so I could put some questions to him and also to two other detectives. There was no need for me to do so prior to the amendment of the indictment.”

However, Judge Stamp swiftly responded saying, “Your application is refused”.

“What is the basis?” Wellesley asked, but Stamp told him that he did not have to give an explanation.

Wellesley then shot back, “This is not a court of tyranny.”

He continued. “I need to know the basis for my own edification. Why is it that you have refused to allow me to put questions to witnesses which now can adversely affect the defence with regards to the indictment you have allowed to be amended. I am not through, and you are not allowing me to finish saying what I am saying. It is not the first time you are doing it. You have done it consistently. From the beginning of this trial you have consistently prevented me from addressing you on behalf of Mr Barnes. This is a murder trial, and right now the Privy Council is dealing with a case and the issue is fairness. I am asking you to allow some fairness to emanate in this trial. Mr Barnes needs to be protected.

“Every time I get up to speak to you invite Mr Davis to muzzle me. I am asking Your Lordship to desist from that, please. I am one of Mr Barnes’ lawyers and Mr Barnes is entitled to have my representation. It is not for the court to work through Mr Davis, my senior, to muzzle me,” Wellesley said.

He then turned his criticism to his senior counsel, saying, “Mr Davis also needs to stop. I need to know whether Mr Davis is representing Mr Barnes or the Crown.”

An obviously irate Wellesley then said to the judge: “I am going to ask you to allow me to complete my address. A while ago I raised an issue concerning the authority and you shut me up. It needs to go on the record, My Lord, that you have been doing this when I asked Your Lordship for the basis of the ruling. I am entitled to ask for the basis. That is what I am used to.”

Stamp, who was not pleased, but was calm, told Wellesley that he was out of order.

“You made the application and I ruled and you continue. Mr Davis, does the defence of Mr Barnes have anything further to add?” Stamp asked, brushing off Wellesley.

But Wellesley defied his senior and stood up to tell the judge, “I am not going to allow you to continue muzzling me. You do so successfully with the assistance of Mr Davis.”

Davis, who had been in a constant battle with Wellesley, trying to get him to sit, told the judge, “I am in charge and I will take over from here. Wellesley is only assisting me.”.

The prosecution subsequently began its closing arguments to the jury, alluding to the fact that McDonald is accused of ordering his wife’s murder because she was unfaithful to him during their marriage.

Prosecutor Sophia Rowe pondered what kind of Jamaica would exist if people went around plotting the murder of their wives and girlfriends just because of cheating.

Tonia McDonald was stabbed multiple times and her throat slashed. Her body as well as the vehicle she was driving were set ablaze.

Cops held Denvalyn Minott for the murder and he confessed to being the contractor in the killing. According to him, McDonald had offered him $3 million to kill his wife but he subcontracted the hit to Barnes, who killed the woman all by himself. Minott also claimed that he watched Barnes commit the murder

The matter continues today.