Pau RigoOld man from Mallorca who killed a thief Robbery at home in 2018, argues that the prosecutor’s office cannot request a retrial. His lawyer, Jaime Campaner, requested the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands (TSJB) not even accept the Prosecutor’s appeal against the sentence that acquitted him. He claims to be a public ministry. I can’t stand the so-called mistakes now was in the decision of the people’s court because it did not demand their correction or protest at the time. “He missed his opportunity”the lawyer said in a brief filed last week.
Rigo was acquitted by the judge presiding over the trial. “Flaws” in the verdict of the popular juryconcluded that the man committed murder while in a state of “mental disturbance” but did so without sufficient votes to consider the thesis proven. The prosecutor’s office requested four years in prison sent to prison for murder incomplete defense of self-defenseHe thinks that the decision is invalid and that the trial should be retried due to these errors.
Campaner, public ministry cannot use these decisions because he did not raise any objections during the hearing. Nor did he request changes to the offers made to jurors to decide Rigo’s guilt. The lawyer argues that It is “unacceptable” for the prosecutor’s office to bring up mistakes on appeal did not identify or report them at the hearing. “You cannot maintain deep silence in the face of possible flaws and then expect to be admired by them.”the lawyer requests that the TSJB not accept the prosecutor’s objection and consequently confirm the acquittal of Pau Rigo.
The lawyer’s brief also requests that the Prosecutor’s objection be rejected if it is accepted. In this sense, Campaner emphasizes the arguments he has continued since he took over Rigo’s defense after the trial. he insists There are no serious flaws in the decision of the popular juryIt is as the prosecution claims and he thinks it is It’s perfectly valid to declare the old man’s innocence.
In its approach, the people’s court “unanimously declared that the only proposition that should find its footing in the classification of premeditated murder was unproven.” The lawyer argues that with this decision: the rest of the votes on possible defenses and mitigating circumstances were unnecessaryThe errors that caused this were later detected. An unprecedented legal mess.