More developments surround the case of Charlotte Prado as the trial for the alleged home-based sexual abuse involving a public figure approaches. In 2017, when serious accusations surfaced, there was a moment where prosecutors moved to drop special charges against José María López, leaving the matter in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. The shifting legal landscape has kept observers attentive, with new details emerging about how the case will proceed and what charges, if any, will ultimately stand in court.
In a recent turn, sources report that Judge María Dolores Palmero noted that Prado had chosen not to pursue a private charge. The court described this decision as a separate matter within the procedure, and it was clarified that Prado stepped back because he did not want to face trial with a private attorney who would not be appointed as a court-appointed lawyer. The move emphasizes the strategic choices defendants sometimes make when faced with complex legal paths and the potential implications for how evidence and testimony are presented in court.
A developing thread concerns Prado’s former counsel, Santiago SeaHe, who reportedly resigned his role last week. Contemporary coverage indicates that Prado, the former reality show contestant, may not follow the earlier legal guidance or adhere to the defensive strategy that had been proposed from the outset. The resignation raises questions about who will represent Prado going forward and how the defense strategy might adapt to evolving circumstances in the case.
One objective discussed by certain parties was to recalibrate the case from the ground up, aiming to reclassify the alleged conduct as a crime of sexual abuse tied to the penetration of an unconscious person. Such a redefinition would carry the potential to increase penalties for José María López, and observers note that this approach could influence sentences, including the possibility of extended imprisonment and compensation for non-pecuniary damages. The legal debate centers on how the facts are interpreted and how applicable statutes would be applied in light of new or revised allegations.
The hearing schedule remains fluid. Initially set for November 3 and 8, the proceedings were formerly slated for February, but Prado’s appearance has been affected by ongoing psychiatric considerations as his attorney later explained. The continuity of the hearing and the logistics of courtroom appearances remain a critical facet of the case, shaping timelines and the coordination between the prosecution, defense, and the judiciary as the parties navigate these sensitive charges.