Should Selgado be Given Jail Time for Abetment to Murder?  

During this afternoon’s hearing, Selgado’s attorney put forward that the convicted lawyer also has a mortgage that he is required to pay and that he stands to lose his life, as well as other properties, should he be given a custodial sentence.  Attorney Saldivar was also asked about the chances that the court would consider the mitigating factors presented on behalf of the defense.

 

Arthur Saldivar, Attorney-at-law

“This punishment may lead to him losing his life, it may also lead to him losing other things, if not his life, things that he was actively pursuing for his own benefit and the benefit of his family.  But that is not to say that because of the existence of these things he is to be considered favorably, to the exclusion of any other person in society under similar circumstances, no.  That is not what we are saying at all.  What we’re saying and what I am saying is, this is simply a part of the compendium of factors that are peculiar to him and what weight is given to that consideration and the consideration of that is certainly within the sole purview of the court. There is legislation and in so far as legislation exists to make this a possibility, my sole consideration is to avail my client with everything that may be able to give him the best possible outcome.  I don’t look to see whether or not I have a ninety percent, eighty percent or seventy percent chance of anything occurring, save and except that I will do my utmost best to put everything at my disposal before the court for a decision to be made. Given the facts that the court had to consider and the elements that were laid out, there are many aggravating factors that do not look good for the convicted Oscar Selgado.  Suffice it to say that where the guidelines are concerned, the ones from the UK that we were tasked to look at, the issue of harm is set against the issue of culpability.  So where those two things coincide or oppose each other, there is a consideration for a downward look at where to start.  In this case, yes, there is high culpability because of the role of Mr. Selgado, his status as a person of trust, having been a lawyer for Ms. Barnes and then being the prospective lawyer of Mr. Ramirez.  But then there is also the mitigating factor that no harm came to Ms. Barnes, and the truth of it is that, well, Ms. Barnes only learned of this threat after the threat was neutralized by law enforcement.”