Oscar Selgado’s Legal Team Questions “Missing Evidence”

Oscar Selgado’s legal team says his conviction for abetment to murder may have serious flaws. The 56-year-old lawyer is serving ten years for allegedly attempting to hire gang member Giovanni Ramirez to kill Marilyn Barnes, who had filed a complaint against him with the General Legal Council.

Arthur Saldivar, Selgado’s pro bono attorney, says crucial evidence was missing.

“There were instances where those files could have been recovered. They weren’t. Those instances were clear before the presiding judge, but nothing was done to secure those filed in the transcript; it would’ve shown where the DDP made requests of the person they called Ramirez if he had the phone, to which he replied, yes, he did have the phone. And the phone was never recovered again for those files to be replaced,” Saldivar said.

He added, “And then, of course, there is the other video file of him giving his testimony at the police station, which should have always been in the possession of the police. But that was never brought before the court. So the court has no idea what Giovanni Ramirez looks like and has no real idea what he sounds like other than what is on recordings made personally by the then commissioner and the DPP [ Director of Public Prosecutions].”

Saldivar also questioned how the crown relied on a statement from Giovanni Ramirez, who never testified in person. Ramirez was shot dead in January 2025 on Amandala Drive in Belize City.

Saldivar further argued that Selgado’s ten-year sentence is excessive when compared to similar cases, including the Johan Abadi case.

He also claimed the prosecution failed to properly prove that a key witness feared for his safety, a requirement under the law to allow testimony without appearing in court.

He said Ramirez had indicated in June 2023 that he would testify, but the DPP did not issue a summons to secure his appearance. Saldivar says this raises questions about whether fear was ever a genuine concern, especially since the accused was on high court bail with conditions preventing interference with witnesses.

He also pointed out several prejudicial elements during the trial. Issues related to Selgado’s personal orientation and missing files from the Ombudsman’s office were presented in court, leaving him unable to properly defend himself.

According to Selgado’s legal team, such factors could have influenced the judges’ perceptions and unfairly affected the outcome.