The Andalusian Supreme Court of Justice (TSJA) refused to accept all the evidence proposed by it. player defense Santi Mina was sentenced to four years in prison for sexually assaulting a woman in Mojácar (Almería).
In a decision that EFE has access to, the TSJA also refuses to hold a new hearing, so it will continue to issue a direct sentence after the investigation. An appeal was filed against the decision. District Court of Almeria.
Mina’s lawyer, Fátima Magdalena Rodríguez, had requested new proof, and the victim’s lawyer, Iván Bolaño, argued in his appeal that others should be tried “at his request” if accepted.
The Andalusian high court, for example, states: “No benefit can be expected” from documentary evidence consisting of press information during the hearing or based on the “unlawful” statements of the parties.
“Acts that are already part of it or statements presented at the plenary meeting cannot be offered as evidence (…) without prejudice to their opinion (…) grounds of appeal“, To add.
emails
With regard to “distorted” emails between defense attorneys and the prosecution, the TSJA states that the “Spanish Lawyer’s Code of Ethics”an obstacle to their provision in the first place.
However, they explain that the said contribution can be justified due to the reference to these notifications in the statements made to the general assembly, and they are suggested to be made.The defense had offered an economic sum to file the case.
However, the TSJA emphasizes that the appealed decision does not make this point, “whatever” the content of these negotiations, “They cannot be used as a consideration for the assessment of a valuation error”.
“In addition to all this, it is at the discretion of the victim or (…) the defendant, no.or an element that cannot be classified as proof that neither the defendant knows the facts nor the complainant’s dishonesty”, adds the supreme court.
For the same reason, he points It is not right to get a new statement from Santi Mina. or that of the attorney for private prosecution.
Therefore, the TSJA concludes that after the evidence presented by the defense is rejected, the same should happen for the private prosecution and adds that this is not appropriate either.e holding a hearing for this reason and because it is not necessary for the appeal review.