This Alicante court faced a fresh round of selections today as 23 new candidates were chosen by lottery for a popular jury in a high-profile trial. Only 13 names remained after a first wave of withdrawals and objections—15 excuses accepted from those initially chosen in the opening draw, leaving 36 nominations from February reduced to a pool of eight undecided, and now a new drawing is underway just three weeks before the proceedings begin. The case recalls the 2016 murder involving María del Carmen Martínez, the widow of Vicente Sala, who was a former CAM president and a central figure in this long-running legal saga.
The upcoming oral hearing is scheduled from May 3 to May 25, and María del Carmen’s son-in-law, Miguel López, will again appear at the defendant’s table. He had been acquitted during the initial hearing, but the Supreme Court subsequently annulled the case over irregularities in the process, including issues with the handling of the jury’s initial decision. The court’s findings pointed to problems in how the complex case was built and how the defense was afforded access to the proceedings, raising questions about whether all legal channels had been properly observed.
A renewed effort to complete the 36-member panel will take place with the second round of nominations. At least 20 candidates have to be shortlisted, from which 9 main members and 2 alternates would be selected. The judges overseeing the Alicante Court prepared for the Tuesday session a roster tally to guide the selection process as they weighed the qualifications of potential jurors, the testimonies that might be offered, and the evolving needs of the trial’s pacing. Investigation and counsel for both private accusers and the defense were present to observe and participate as needed.
During the session, six of the 15 people who had previously offered excuses for not serving as jurors appeared in court, while the remaining applicants submitted documents to justify their inability to attend. The president of the jury court, Jose Maria Merlos, indicated that all justifications that complied with the applicable rules would be accepted. In this context, the jurors deemed eligible were identified through a careful process that balanced the expectations of the victim’s family and the accused, aiming to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the jury pool. The court emphasized that decisions about excusals would be based strictly on legally recognized grounds.
notifications
The jury court promptly organized the paperwork for the 23 newly shortlisted candidates in the Sala case and prepared to distribute the materials this week. Prospective jurors will receive notices and have five days to file any claims to excuse themselves from service if they believe their presence at the hearing would be inappropriate. A subsequent hearing will then determine whether those claims are justified and whether any jurors should be replaced prior to the trial’s start. This careful approach reflects the crucial balance between keeping the trial on track and ensuring that jurors can participate without conflicting obligations.
The murder case against Miguel López, accused of killing the widow of the former CAM president by a headshot near a car wash connected to the family business in Alicante, is set to be tried almost seven years after the crime. The incident occurred on the afternoon of December 9, 2016. López faces a maximum sentence totaling 24 and a half years for murder and possession of illegal weapons, with the same sentence request echoed by both the prosecution and a specialized prosecutor acting on behalf of the victim’s son, Vicente Sala. This protracted timeline underscores the complexity of the proceedings and the ongoing effort to secure a fair trial for all involved parties.
Grounds for excusing service as a juror include being over 65, having served on a jury in the past four years, or carrying significant family responsibilities due to illness. Individuals employed in essential services, residents living abroad, military personnel, and others with compelling personal, professional, or geographic reasons may also be excused, subject to the evaluation of each case. The court highlighted that exceptions would be considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting a pragmatic approach to maintaining a workable jury panel without compromising legal standards.