In Cáceres, a courtroom drama unfolds as defense and prosecution clash over the handling of a high-profile robbery case
Initially, the Court of Investigation rejected the attorney’s offer for those accused in the Atrio robbery. After the lawyer suggested prison remission in exchange for probation—a proposal opposed by the prosecution—the request was denied hours later. This sequence repeated itself on the following Wednesday. The trial court presiding over the matter was the Cáceres County Court, and Dumitru and Guevara faced a growing chorus of objections from the defense as the proceedings progressed, with the attorney openly displaying his dissatisfaction before the magistrates one after another.
During the pre-trial hearing, the parties debated what is known in legal terms as “prior issues.” The defense had an opportunity to present four arguments. First, to establish that Priscila Lara has ties to the Netherlands and an address there, second, to demonstrate that she was not arrested in conjunction with Dumitru for a robbery in Madrid’s Salamanca district, third, to introduce evidence that both suspects used cocaine which could be presented as a mitigation factor if convicted, and finally, to secure testimony from the defendants at trial. All four requests were rejected by the court. It is worth noting that a similar challenge to admissibility of evidence had recently been raised in a murder case in Cáceres and also dismissed.
This broad pattern of refusals gave rise to several disputes within the court, including a public protest by Joaquin Gonzalez Casso and the defense attorney. From the outset of the hearing, the attorney voiced opposition to commencing the trial on the grounds that he had not been properly notified, and he also voiced concerns about the scheduling, noting that the trial would unfold over two non-consecutive days (27 February and 1 March), which sparked a fresh conflict.
“The conformity agreement could not be reached because the bottles had to be examined and the ones that were not available could not be delivered, making agreement impossible even if there was willingness,” stated the defense lawyer, Silvia Córdoba, answering questions from journalists covering what is widely reported as Cáceres’s most publicized case.
-Why didn’t the defendants’ lawyers’ clients appear to answer questions about the bottles and the people involved in the alleged possession or sale?
–They were not essentially stolen goods.
-What level of sentence reduction did they seek?
–Not a large reduction, just the legal minimum, while the defendants would remain incarcerated. That did not seem like a reasonable offer. Yet, the defense listened as the first trial session began, only to hear that it wouldn’t unfold as previously anticipated.
-The defense has maintained that the defendants neither admitted guilt nor innocence and that they might not testify. What happens next?
–The matter is still open; no decision has been made on testimony. So far, the defendants have not testified, and it is likely they will continue to remain silent. The court system generally allows accused individuals to testify, but in this case the defense argues that exercising that right could risk self-incrimination or misstatement. The defense also notes that the prosecutor’s office has received a favorable report, citing no issues with the proceedings.
Why insist on remaining silent?
–Because the defendants have a constitutional right. Before any misstep, there is concern that questioning could produce an unintentionally damaging answer. The defense believes this approach protects their clients while allowing witnesses, police, and experts to present the evidence. They emphasize that trials are not about kamikaze strategies but about ensuring there are solid grounds for verdicts. The defense argues that the right to avoid self-incrimination should be respected, and it remains to be seen whether the courts will fully credit the defendants’ statements when they are heard.
-Will the defense be able to respond to the prosecution’s summary of events and test all the details of the case?
–The defense will remain committed to its line of argument and will do everything possible to safeguard the defendants’ interests.
-Is the assertion that the defendants’ drug use is part of the defense’s strategy?
–The aim is to address any dependency issues that could affect cognitive ability and, if appropriate, to seek mitigation or a reduced punishment. This line of defense reflects a broader approach to ensuring fair consideration of all relevant factors.
-Why was the toxicological report not produced at the start of the investigation?
–Requests for the report had been denied earlier, with the prosecution presenting admissible evidence only later. The defense expresses disappointment that the report was not included sooner and argues for more objectivity and impartiality from the examining authorities.
–Does acknowledging drug problems imply an admission of guilt?
–Not necessarily. The defense explains that highlighting potential drug dependencies is a strategic measure to create the broadest possible defense. If there is a gap in the case, it is best addressed now to avoid harming the client’s position later, especially if a conviction occurs.
-How are Dumitru and Priscila Lara Guevara faring?
–They appear distressed and anxious, uneasy about the ongoing scrutiny and the possibility of a lengthy legal process.
-Can the defense challenge the restaurant’s security footage or other evidence?
–No firm conclusions are drawn yet. The defense intends to review all presented material and challenge what is feasible. Trials remain unpredictable, and almost anything could be contested as the process unfolds.
-What about the defendants’ stay at the hotel or any alleged whereabouts?
–The matter is still under consideration. The defense has not ruled out the possibility of the defendants testifying, but they are weighing all factors as they determine the best path forward. The defensenotes that signs observed as the defendants return to Cáceres Prison will be telling, particularly at critical crossroads where release seems distant.
Related posts:
Atrio Robbery Trial: Key Testimonies and Evidence in Cáceres Atrio Case: DNA Evidence and the Hotel Room 107 Remains a Focal Point of the Cáceres Trial Atrio Robbery Case: Courtroom Journey Through Cáceres Wine Theft Trial in Cáceres: Key Facts and Court Proceedings Defense in Atrium Robbery Case Keeps Dumitru in Custody Atrio Case: Witnesses, Valuations, and Courtroom Drama Atrio wine theft trial begins in Cáceres court Atrio Hotel Wine Heist: Court Conviction and Evidence Summary Prosecutor Pursues Theft Case Involving Atrio Restaurant in Cáceres Atrio Hotel Robbery Trial: No Settlement Reached, Court Date Pending HLA Alicante Edges Cáceres in Late Scare, Earns 12th Win {“rewritten_html”:”An Algerian citizen, tried alongside a Moroccan-origin defendant yesterday, faced questions about a confrontation on Levante beach in Benidorm. Allegations centered on robbery and a stabbing that occurred after the victim’s cell phone rang. The two defendants denied both charges, while the victim affirmed the accusations, and the Prosecution urged the Court to convict them, seeking a substantial prison sentence for violent robbery and attempted murder, totaling nine years and nine months. [Source: Local court records]nnIn addition, the prosecutor asked for compensation to the victim amounting to 19,480 euros for damages and consequences. The defense teams argued for acquittal on the charge of injury or, at minimum, a conviction that did not include that element. [Source: Local court records]nnThe two men were in pre-trial detention after their dawn arrest on May 21, 2022. They maintained their innocence and, in turn, claimed that the victim had assaulted them earlier. The Algerian defendant, asserting that he did not steal the phone, described the scene as the victim lounging in a hammock on Levante beach and approaching him with an iron bar. He claimed that, after being struck, he attempted to flee and that his companion tried to intervene. According to his account, the victim then escalated the situation and a group of the victim’s associates, employed in portering or hospitality, arrived on a scooter and joined the assault. He further stated that intoxication affected both men and that he himself went to the police to seek help, a claim the officers dismissed as inaccurate at the hearing. [Source: Local court records]nndrug problemsnThe other defendant likewise denied the robbery, arguing instead that the victim and his associate were entangled in a drug-related dispute. He said the two men began arguing and that he stepped in to separate them, noting that his friend started to run but did not attempt to take the phone. When the victim called companions who arrived at the scene with a baseball bat, the accused said they were met with blows in return. He claimed he avoided a head injury with a stick and did not know how the victim had been wounded with a knife. [Source: Local court records]nnThe victim’s testimony at trial differed markedly from the defendants’ accounts. He described lying in a hammock on Levante beach at dawn, speaking with his mother back in Algeria, and being assaulted after the phone was forcibly removed from his chest while he was on a call. He said he reacted by leaving in a vehicle, which led to a confrontation with the alleged robber. He asserted that the other defendant also stabbed him, and he sustained multiple stab wounds to the abdomen, arm, forehead, and neck. After the stabbing, the attackers fled, and the victim pursued them despite the injuries. [Source: Local court records]nnThe National Police received a call reporting a fight between men in the Rincón de Loix area, and the initial patrol encountered a bloody man in the roadway who requested assistance and pointed out the perpetrators as they attempted to leave. Officers confirmed during the hearing that the two suspects had fled and had largely ignored the stop warnings. Authorities also noted that the blade used in the attack had not been recovered at the scene. A medical examiner later observed that the wounds did not appear to be life-threatening and did not compromise vital organs. [Source: Local court records]nnThe proceedings thus centered on diverging narratives: the defendants’ assertion of self-defense and drug-related tensions versus the victim’s account of an unprovoked assault and a stolen phone. The court weighed the credibility of testimonies, the timing of events on the Levante beach, and the physical evidence, or lack thereof, to determine accountability for the alleged violent robbery and stabbing. [Source: Local court records]”}