The Fourth Session of the Popular Jury Trial in Zaragoza: Details of the Case Involving Vanesa Muñoz Pujol and Cristian Lastanao Valenilla
The fourth round of the popular jury trial in Zaragoza proceeded this Thursday, focusing on Vanesa Muñoz Pujol and Cristian Lastanao Valenilla, accused of torturing and killing a young girl. As the session unfolded, the Prosecutor’s Office, alongside specialized charges, and the defense presented their conclusions. The nine jurors, elected by the town to oversee justice, listened intently as reports were read to them. The defense and the prosecution laid out their final arguments, and each side prepared to respond to the evidence that had emerged throughout the proceedings. The courtroom heard from the victim’s biological father’s attorney, Manuel Hatero, who spoke forcefully and without hesitation. He characterized both defendants as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and asserted that the defendants bore full responsibility for the child’s death. He described a pattern of abuse and neglect, detailing how the victim had been subjected to beatings and, over a span of 48 hours, was subjected to repeated drugging. He described the victim as a “zombie” and a doll-like figure, moved by blows and subjected to prolonged suffering. In this account, Hatero argued that the defendants’ guilt was clear and undeniable.
Hatero painted a portrait of calculated perpetrators who manipulated circumstances to evade accountability. He described a modus operandi in which one partner was enticed into a relationship and then accused of abuse, a cycle that culminated in murder. The attorney stressed that the crime encompassed treachery and cruelty, and he urged the court to consider these factors when determining the appropriate sentence. He pointed to a specific instance of extreme cruelty, noting that the victim was placed in cold water for hours before death was confirmed, a detail he presented to underscore the severity of the offense.
The prosecutor aligned with many of Hatero’s concerns while noting that the defendants did not intend to cause the girl’s death in a straightforward sense. The prosecutor emphasized that criminal liability can arise from both deliberate actions and negligent conduct. He argued that the defendants bore responsibility for the minor’s death, given their actions and inactions during the critical period. The prosecutor highlighted that the evolution of the condition treated as perinatal illness in this case spanned roughly 48 hours. Throughout that window, the two defendants were observed to have neglected the girl’s deteriorating health. They were responsible for seeking medical help promptly, yet instead they failed to act decisively. The prosecutor reminded the jurors that the defendants did not contact health services immediately; assistance was requested only after neighbors intervened and alerted the police. In this context, the defense and prosecution united on a point: there was a failure to respond promptly to a medical emergency, a factor that weighed heavily in the overall assessment of responsibility.
The defense for the accused pushed for acquittal, asserting a lack of awareness regarding the seriousness of the events and suggesting that responsibility lay primarily with Cristian Lastanao Valenilla. Vanesa Muñoz Pujol’s counsel argued that his client acted under someone else’s influence, implying that her actions were constrained by her partner’s will. The defense contended that the elements of intent and knowledge might not be fully attributable to Vanesa, urging the court to consider a more nuanced appraisal of culpability and to avoid a conviction that did not reflect the subtleties of the case.
Both defendants had their opportunity to speak in their own defense. Vanesa chose silence, while Cristian addressed the room in a final statement. He expressed astonishment at the possibility that such a tragedy could unfold, admitting the shock of the events and acknowledging that the situation was beyond his prior understanding. The jury’s task now centers on evaluating the full scope of the evidence and determining whether the elements of guilt have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jurors will reconvene next Monday to deliberate in private on the question of innocence or guilt. If a verdict of guilt is reached, the president of the jury, Alfonso Ballestín, will determine the appropriate sentence, including the possibility of imprisonment. The trial continues to explore the circumstances surrounding this case, weighing the testimonies, forensic findings, and the reported timeline of events to arrive at a just resolution. The proceedings illustrate the gravity with which the legal system treats acts of severe harm and the communal commitment to ensuring due process for all parties involved. The outcome remains awaited by the community, several stakeholders, and observers who have followed the case closely, awaiting a clear and legally grounded verdict that reflects the evidence presented during the trial.