The Andalusian Supreme Court of Justice (TSJA) has declined to admit all the evidence proposed by the defense in the case involving footballer Santi Mina. Mina was sentenced to four years in prison for sexually assaulting a woman in Mojácar, Almería. The ruling signals that the court will proceed with a direct judgment following the investigation, and no new hearing will be scheduled. An appeal has been filed against this decision before the Almería Provincial Court.
Mina’s defense attorney, Fátima Magdalena Rodríguez, had requested the introduction of additional proof. The victim’s lawyer, Iván Bolaño, stated in the appeal that other individuals should be summoned if the court deems it appropriate. The TSJA’s decision clarifies that no benefit can be derived from documentary evidence that relies on press coverage during the hearing or on statements by the parties that are deemed unlawful. The court also notes that acts already part of the record or statements presented during the plenary session cannot be introduced as evidence, without prejudice to an evaluation of the grounds of appeal.
emails
Regarding alleged distortions in emails exchanged between defense counsel and the prosecution, the TSJA points to the provisions of the Spanish Lawyers’ Code of Ethics as an obstacle to their provision in the first instance. Nevertheless, the court explains that such correspondence might be justified if it is referenced in the statements made to the general assembly and could be considered in the context of the case. The defense had proposed an economic settlement as part of the case filing. The TSJA stresses that the appealed decision does not address this point, and regardless of the content of those negotiations, they cannot be treated as evidence for correcting valuation errors.
The court adds that the outcome of this matter remains at the discretion of the victim or the defendant, or another party, but that this does not constitute proof that the defendant is aware of the facts or that the complainant’s allegations are untrue. In light of this, the supreme court concludes that there is no merit in obtaining a new testimony from Santi Mina or from the attorney for private prosecution.
Consequently, the TSJA states that since the evidence presented by the defense has been rejected, the same applies to the evidence offered by the private prosecution. The court also notes that holding a new hearing solely for this reason is unnecessary for the purposes of appeal review. In sum, the decision emphasizes that the appellate process should rely on the evidence already examined and on the legal arguments presented, without reopening the evidentiary phase unless a clear and compelling basis is shown for doing so. [Source: TSJA decision, summarized for clarity and context.]