Conflicts over reported Martinelli plea deal talk

ALTHOUGH ex-president  Ricardo Martinelli recently issued a written statement that he would never agree to a plea bargain that would require him to plead guilty to the illegal wiretapping of some 150 politicians, journalists, judges, and businessmen, there have been meetings with Martinelli’s legal team to explore the issue

Herrera Morán, representative of Dr. Mauro Zúñiga, a victim of the telephone jabs, says that he had a meeting with a defense lawyer, reports  La Estrella, but lawyers for other victims have not participated

The recent approach, which according to Herrera Morán is another of the 7 or 8 previous meetings that point to the same thing, took place on Wednesday, July 11, at an office in the capital city and was attended by Martinelli’s  wife, and a lawyer of the defense (Carlos Carrillo according to other sources).

The expectation was to get Martinelli to declare a confession and agree to a prison sentence of 7 to 8 years. That is a third of the sentence of 21 years requested by the prosecutor, Harry Diaz, to the Judge of Guarantees Jerónimo Mejía in the indictment.

The next day, a manuscript by Martinelli made it clear that he would not accept a penalty agreement and maintained his innocence.

Morán told La Estrella that he had the permission of the rest of the complainants for the approach. He said that the meeting focused on the legal issue and that it did not touch on the issue of compensation.

Prosecutor Díaz corroborates that Morán informed him of an appointment convened by the defense lawyer, Carlos Carrillo, accompanied by Marta Linares, to explore the possibility of a penalty agreement, but nothing was said in depth. The compensation, in this case, added Díaz, must be agreed with the complainants.

“What has always been maintained is that no penalty agreement can be less than 5 years in prison. As long as the complainants agree with these principles, the penalty agreement can be considered as a possibility, “said the prosecutor.

Rosendo Rivera, the autonomous plaintiff in the case, said that he has not authorized Herrera Moran to hold any meeting on his behalf. “My word and that of the rest of the complainants was that it was not right to meet unilaterally to address issues that affect all the complainants,” Rivera said.

Rodolfo Pinzón, Balbina Herrera’s lawyer, confirmed that Herrera Morán told the complainants that he had met with a defense representative, but without major consequences.

A conversation between the María Cecilia Jiménez and Herrera Morán spread through social networks.

Jiménez, a Colombian national, is known by Herrera Morán and Marta Martinelli. Linares. In the audio published on social networks, the young Jiménez says she served as a bridge between the parties that explored a penalty agreement.

Michell Doens corroborates that Herrera Morán indicated that he had approached the representatives of Martinelli’s defense.

He said that, when Martinelli was imprisoned in the United States, his lawyer Sidney Sitton proposed a penalty agreement alleging that Martinelli suffered from prostate cancer, which Doens did not object to because it was about humanitarian issues. At that time, he asked the lawyer for a medical certificate that endorsed his words. “He never presented it,” Doens said.

“The agreements are made with the prosecutor only. When Martinelli asks for an agreement, it is because he is willing to plead guilty, and once he pleads guilty, the issue of penalties, compensation to the State and the victims is discussed.”