BELIZE CITY, Wed. June 4, 2025

In a judgement 30-pages long that was handed down today, the Belize Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and sentence of two men – Marvin Neal, 32, and Jaroud Lamb, 37 – who were convicted of murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment without the eligibility of parole until after they have served 30 years.

Neal and Lamb were found guilty of the murder of Steven Valencia, who was shot and killed during a robbery at his home in Santa Elena, Cayo, on January 24, 2013. It was a judge alone trial.

The main evidence against the appellants, who were charged jointly with murder, came from caution statements they allegedly gave to the police shortly after they were arrested. The circumstances under which these caution statements were obtained are of paramount importance, overshadowing every other consideration.

At the trial, Neal and Lamb challenged the voluntariness under which the caution statements were given. Neal alleged that the police beat him, including shocking him with an electric wire. He said that the police also promised him that he would be released if he gave them a statement. Lamb alleged oppressive conduct on the part of the police, as well as unfairness in the manner in which his statement was taken. Lamb also alleged that the statement was not his, and that it was prepared by the police who, along with the Justice of the Peace, prevailed upon him to sign it.

The allegations of the use of force, the promises and the concoctions by the police, were all rejected by the trial judge. She not only found them to be untruthful, she also accepted the version of the events that was put forward by the investigating officers, and she concluded that the statements were freely and voluntarily given and consequently admissible as evidence.

Neal appealed on the grounds that the learned trial judge erred by admitting the caution statement into evidence for the following reasons: A) By wrongly assuming that because he turned himself in with Assistant Commissioner of Police Noel Leal, he gave the caution statement freely and voluntarily; B) By considering the context of the caution statement in determining whether the statement was given without any inducement or pressure; C) By assuming the facts not in evidence; D) By misquoting crucial pieces of evidence; E) By finding he had a rapport and was comfortable with detective constable Requena; F) By concluding that he was familiar with the police and knew the system; and G) Not assessing the evidence fairly.

The case for the prosecution on the voire dire rested mainly on the evidence of detective constable Requena who took the caution statement, and the Justice of the Peace who witnessed it. At the conclusion of the voire dire, the trial judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that Neal had given the statement voluntarily.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution’s case regarding the voire dire of the admissibility of Lamb’s caution statement was far slimmer than Neal’s case.

Lamb challenged the decision to admit his caution statement into evidence on the following grounds : a) showing him the statement of the co-accused Neal without telling him that it was not admissible against him in court, was oppressive, unfair, and it pressured Lamb into incriminating himself; b) being questioned by corporal Seirra without being cautioned while he was in the cell; c) that the same detective constable Puc, conducted the interview and recorded the statement; d) the prosecution did not conclusively prove that Lamb was provided with food and water before he gave the statement, so it was obtained under oppressive conditions; and e) that the JP could not recall what transpired with Lamb, and his evidence was in general terms, rendering it unfair.

Belize Court of Appeal upheld the grounds of appeal with regard to whether the statements were obtained voluntarily; and as a result, quashed the conviction and sentence of both appellants.

Neal was represented by attorney Leeroy Banner, while Lamb was represented by attorney Peta Gay Bradley.

The Director of Public Prosecution Cheryl Lyn Vidal represented the Respondent.