First, it was the Court of Investigation that rejected the attorney’s offer in the first instance for those accused of the Atrio robbery. After the lawyer decided that he should go to prison Silvia Cordoba He demanded that they be released on probation, which was against the prosecution and was denied hours later. This situation was repeated this Wednesday. The trial court in this case was the Cáceres County Court. Dumitru and GuevaraObjecting to the demands of the lawyer, who did not publicly hide his discomfort, before the magistrates one by one.
In the pre-trial hearing, the parties discussed what is known in judicial language as ‘prior issues’. The defense had the opportunity to present their arguments. There were four. First, to admit that Priscila Lara has roots in the Netherlands, where she has an address, and second, to show that she was not arrested with Dumitru for robbery in the Salamanca district of Madrid. Third, the inclusion of evidence showing that both were cocaine users, which could be used as a mitigation in the case of conviction, and finally, the defendants’ testimony at the end of the trial. All offers were rejected by the court. Incidentally, this last point was also recently claimed in a murder case in Cáceres and was dismissed at the time.
This common refusal gave rise to one of the disputes between the court he presided over. Joaquin Gonzalez Cassoand lawyer who publicly protested. However, these were not the only differences. Already at the beginning of the hearing, the lawyer stated that he was against the start of the trial because he was not notified, and then he gave the hearing date at the end of the hearing, which was divided into two non-consecutive days. (27 February and 1 March) caused a new conflict.
“The agreement of conformity was not possible because for this they told us that the bottles had to be seen and the ones that were not could not be delivered, so it was impossible to agree even if we wanted to”said defense attorney Sylvia Córdoba, answering questions from journalists assigned to follow the most publicized case in Cáceres.
-Why don’t your customers return the bottles because they don’t remember who they gave the bottles to or to whom they sold them?
Because they weren’t basically stolen.
How much did they want to reduce their sentences?
– Not so much: the legal minimum, but they were going to continue in jail, and that didn’t seem like a logically acceptable deal to us. But hey, we came to listen and we found the first trial session, where they told us it wouldn’t be like that, and the first trial session.
-The truth is, your clients have never declared themselves innocent or guilty, what will they do at the trial?
-We’ll see; We didn’t say they were going to testify either. So far they have not done so and will likely remain silent. And what’s more, after we’ve finally denied our right to testify and all the courts have accepted it, as is routinely done in all cases, at least in cases I’ve gone to and requested. Not here. For this reason, we always respect the judicial decision, but regret that all of our requests have been rejected as an infringement for this defense. The reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the accused to finally testify as there is the possibility of contradicting what a witness has said. It really is the best. We were surprised that they denied us and moreover had a positive report from the prosecutor’s office which did not cause any problems.
So why do you support your defendants to remain silent?
Because they have a constitutional right. And before they err, because they can get confused by questioning and hurt themselves with an unintentional answer. We don’t want to take that risk. We believe this is the most appropriate. We will listen to witnesses, police, experts. And let’s see the evidence. We are not kamikazes, we are not suicide bombers, but if we are to fight it, it is because we believe there are more than enough reasons to eliminate each of these symptoms. That’s why we came. Because they are also accused, they have the right not to tell the truth. I don’t know if the courts will believe what a defendant says one hundred percent. They definitely prefer to listen to witnesses.
-They will be able to create a story by knowing the details of the summary… what point of view does he have?
-Maybe we started hard, but we continue in our line and we will do everything we can for his defense.
– Is that why you took refuge in the fact that your clients are using drugs?
I was looking to relieve addiction. Whenever we have an assumption of dependency and an assumption that it may have reduced their cognitive abilities, we are compelled to demand it because it can and should of course be requested as a mitigation, a reduction in punishment.
-Why was the toxicological report not submitted at the beginning of the investigation?
-We have already requested and been rejected at the time of the appropriate procedure. We had to ask again; Again we were rejected. And…surprise!The prosecution, the civil plaintiff, presented the admissible evidence completely untimely. We respect but are sorry. We do not have that report. We requested that it be done by the coroner; that is, there cannot be more objectivity, no more impartiality.
– You stated that your clients have drug problems, isn’t that a tacit admission that they are perpetrators?
– It doesn’t have to, but we always have to look for the broadest defense for the client. If we see a gap, we use it so that in case of conviction it is up to the court, not us; We will try to alleviate it. And that doesn’t mean the facts have been acknowledged, and it wouldn’t have happened if we had paid the compensation.
-How are Dumitru and Priscila Lara Guevara?
-They’re wrong. sad. Anxious. frightened. They wonder why everything they want is denied.
-He doesn’t seem to want to, but can he go in to evaluate the evidence presented, for example, can the footage of the restaurant cameras be refuted?
I don’t want to evaluate. We will tell them as they are brought to us and seen. Everything is debatable. Trials are very unpredictable. Everything is possible.
-How long will you accept that you are at the hotel and spend the night there?
– This will stay with me. We need to decide whether they will testify or not. We deny everything right now. And even if they were found at the hotel, that doesn’t prove they were the perpetrators of the alleged kidnapping. Objective evidence will not be direct evidence here. Sylvia Córdoba concludes that there will be signs as the defendants return to Cáceres prison as they leave, at the crossroads where they feel their release seems distant.