Sala Case: Well, the minutes were not his and could not be broken.

That autumn night, at 22:00, the presiding judge of the case, Judge Francisca Bru, He called the parties and reversed the verdict of the public jury, after twelve hours of deliberation, due to the alleged lack of consideration of contraindications (sic).

Then shouting “I’m the record” and in the midst of a hearing where tensions might break out, he could argue that by denying the document to the parties, he prevented the review of a judicial decision, which he had the right to determine whether the charges and the defense had grounds for rejection, and that it was relevant.

At this point, there is no doubt that a guilty verdict by seven votes to two After another 48 hours of solitary confinement and a replacement juror for bad temper, acquitted by six votes to three.

Despite its severity, the magistrate’s blast on the record was not the only insurmountable irregularity committed that night. More would come in the middle of nowhere tense and sometimes hostile environment (the recording of the look illustrates this well) in line with the respirations throughout the 18 sessions of the trial. Miguel López is married to the victim’s youngest daughter and is the sole suspect in the crime.

Also that night, Bru decided to combine the two hearings established by the Establishment Act of the Jury Tribunal for this presumption into one (to address technical issues to the parties on the one hand, and to notify the jury of the return on the other). ), by doing so, I got involved in a debate in court that I should have remained indifferent, so the judge acted against the law.

Two reasons in and of themselves were sufficient to invalidate the case. this clear and rational decision you wrote Manuel Marchena They supported four out of five members of the tribunal, among them Alicante Vicente Magro, and this leaves no room for doubt.

However, if not enough draft irregularities have been made, there is one more in the process that is still impossible to repair: destruction of this first decision Absolutely denying the charges and the defense from knowing whether the reasons put forward by Judge Bru to return were justified, as well as restricting the possibilities for appeals and appeals. exempt the judge’s decision from basic judicial review.

The disappearance of that document is so serious that If the Supreme Court had not now i dotted to censor this action, any presiding judge could consider the resolution of a process at any time are based on feedback from any outside of control decisions.

Because value compared to High Court of Justice criterion and Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Officeaccepting this procedure as good, Marchena’s chamber confirmed the arguments put forward in her appeal by attorney Francisco Ruiz Marco, who is prosecuting privately on behalf of the victim’s son.

Claiming this record, which no one today can explain how it was destroyed, is only a matter of accusations. vicious debate and devoid of any logic that questions its undeniable value, while keeping it simple in reality “an eraser”but focused In the process, an insult to the Justice Administration lawyer, Manuel Cerdá, with which His comrades gathered incessantly to analyze, at least publicly, whether it was right to proceed in this way.

The end result of this trace of anomalies is the repetition of a murder case. emotional as well as economic cost what does this mean? The process mobilized more one hundred people, including witnesses, experts and legal operators. But at least it was clear from the remains that The report neither belongs to the judge nor can it be destroyed.