Supreme Court orders re-trial of CAM’s widow’s crime


The son-in-law of Mari Carmen Martinez, Sala’s parents and killed by two shots at the family’s laundry in 2016, will sit back on the bench. Miguel López was acquitted by a popular jury

miguel lee
The son-in-law of the deceased, Miguel López, has been acquitted of the murder.M. Lorenzo

Supreme court Undo a sentence known as ‘room case’, the crime of Mari Carmen Martinez, widow of the former CAM president, and ordered a repeat trial according to what judicial sources have informed EL Mundo.

deceased’s son-in-law, miguel lopezSit back on the bench accusing him of shooting her twice in the laundry room of the family business on the night of December 9, 2016.

In November 2019, a popular jury declared him not guilty in a second deliberation, which was not without controversy, as EL Mundo advanced in particular, because of a formal conviction that the first had been quashed by a judge. , which was pronounced incorrectly. , That first act was destroyed and at this point the Supreme has an effect.

The Criminal Chamber has upheld the appeal of the deceased’s son against the acquittal and ordered a new trial with a different composition of the jury and a new magistrate. The court that made this decision did so with four votes in favor and one special vote.

sentence of provincial court Alicante’s, after a verdict of not guilty issued by jury, was confirmed by the TSJ of the Valencian Community, however, the Supreme Court held that the appellant’s right of defense was returned in the manner was irreparably damaged by it. Of the record in a hearing by the magistrate in which the parties and the jury were called.

For the court, there are two factors that cannot be ignored when assessing the scope of that decision. “On the one hand, the deliberate destruction of the record that reflected the first verdict; on the other, the widespread opinion – without stating its reality – that the jury changed the initial guilty verdict for a second judgment of innocence and that the change was due to the interpretation that The members of the jury pointed to the signs drawn up during the development of the hearing by the magistrate-president to justify the return of the record.

The sentence argues that the public prosecutor, the private prosecution, and of course the defendant’s defense, undoubtedly had the right to know whether the probative assessment initially signed by the members of the jury was sufficient to justify the authorship of the offense for which the charge was made. was prepared. , if that was the result of deliberation. “And that knowledge can be gained only by the reading of the original minutes, and not as a result of the Magistrate-President’s explanation, which was directed to the members of the jury”. “Any document which reflects the crisis of decision-making cannot become a secret document, only within the reach of the magistrate-president and the access prohibited to the parties,” he says.

The court concluded that “the subsequent destruction of the record legitimized the doubt as to whether it was the magistrate’s indications in justifying the return of the undisclosed verdict, which made a change in the criteria to a preliminary incriminating result in the declaration of acquittal.” It was thus infringing on the right to a process with all guarantees by explicitly prohibiting the principle of contradiction”, he assured.

according to the norms of

trust project

know more

About the Author

The co-owner & marketing chief of "The Business News", Sravya is also good at Writing and communicating. she has good networking skills. she is really passionate about publishing quality news articles. - - You can reach Her at Facebook:- @sai.sravya.3910

Leave A Response