In a landmark ruling handed down on July 23, 2026, a Belize High Court justice has cleared the way for the prosecution’s star witness to give evidence remotely via video link from the United States in the high-profile murder trial of Krismar Espinoza, rejecting defense claims that the arrangement would compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Espinoza stands accused of the fatal shooting of Wilbert Bank, which took place on April 5, 2024 in Belize. The Crown prosecution had petitioned the court to allow primary witness Jenella Armstrong, who currently resides in the U.S. while pursuing an asylum claim there, to testify outside of the domestic courtroom. In her sworn affidavit, Armstrong outlined two urgent reasons for her request: she claims Espinoza has directly threatened both her life and that of her minor son, leaving her in credible fear for her safety if she returns to Belize, and she warned that a trip home to appear in person would put her pending U.S. asylum application at serious risk.
Espinoza’s defense team mounted a fierce challenge to the remote testimony request, raising two core objections. First, they argued that a witness testifying from outside Belize’s jurisdiction would face little to no practical consequence for lying under oath, as extradition for perjury is rare, removing a key incentive for truthful testimony. Second, the defense cast doubt on the authenticity of Armstrong’s stated safety fears, claiming she actually sought to avoid in-person court appearances to prevent public speculation that she was somehow complicit in Bank’s murder.
Justice Pilgrim, the presiding judge in the case, rooted his ruling in two existing pieces of Belizean legislation: Section 64(1)(c) of the Evidence Act, which explicitly allows courts to accept remote video evidence, and Section 186 of the Senior Courts Act, which grants the High Court broad discretionary power to conduct virtual hearings. Both statutes apply to all case types, including criminal matters, and do not set rigid limitations on when virtual testimony can be approved.
To bolster his decision, Justice Pilgrim also referenced binding international legal precedent, including a historic ruling from the UK House of Lords and a 2020 decision from the Privy Council. He emphasized that a fair trial does not require a witness to be physically present in the same courtroom as the defendant — the only core requirement is that the defense retains full opportunity to see, hear, and cross-examine the witness, a standard that modern video technology can easily meet.
The judge was careful to carve out key boundaries to his ruling, noting that he was not making any preliminary determination on whether the alleged threats against Armstrong actually occurred; that question, he stressed, will be decided by the trial itself. He also pushed back against the defense’s perjury concerns, clarifying that false testimony from Armstrong would still violate Belize’s Criminal Code regardless of her physical location when giving evidence, leaving her open to prosecution for the offense.
Moving forward, Armstrong will deliver her testimony under oath via the Microsoft Teams platform. She will be visible to all parties in the proceeding — the judge, the defendant, defense counsel, and members of the public — and will undergo full cross-examination exactly as she would if she were appearing in person in the Belizean courtroom.
