“Sentencing Guideline for Selgado was not Appropriate”  

Before the case was adjourned, Justice Pilgrim shared with Selgado a copy of a sentencing guideline from another country on attempted murder, explaining that he had not seen a sentencing guideline for this region that he could share. Selgado noted upon receipt of the guideline that it was for attempted murder, to which the judge explained that only the relevant portions of the guidelines could apply, such as aggravating factors and mitigating factors. But Saldivar did not agree that the guideline was appropriate to share, and he explained why.

 

Arthur Saldivar, Attorney for Oscar Selgado

“I don’t see guidelines pertaining to attempt murders being adequate in this circumstance. From my understanding of the facts, the virtual complainant was under no threat of life at any time. A third party made claims that at the end of the day, the court accepted and convicted on, but the virtual complainant herself, no attempts were made on her. That would be a mitigating factor – a major mitigating factor – that the virtual complainant was never under threat, never perceived any threat. And I think another mitigating factor would be that the judge himself believed what Mr. Ramirez said, in that he never intended to do anything in respect of the murder, okay. So, if the judge does not believe that Mr. Ramirez was going to do anything and the virtual complainant herself was under no threat, I don’t see what more mitigating factor than that one would need. The no convicted is saying that an error was made in law and that error in law in fact, may very well result in him being exonerated. So until then, I would not want to speak with any finality on any findings that was made in this instant matter.”