The Majorcan Legion Brigade case continues to unfold in Seville, as prosecutors seek a long prison sentence for a sergeant and several officers accused in the fatal shooting of a 21-year-old legionnaire during a March 2019 drill at the Agost maneuvering area near Almería. Eight soldiers are under investigation, though the public prosecution charges only two lieutenants, a captain, and the sergeant with responsibility for the incident.
The family of the deceased, legionnaire Alejandro Jiménez Cruz, is pursuing a total of 34 years in prison for the sergeant they accuse of firing the fatal shot. They are pressing for additional penalties and removals from public office, should the court find negligence or intent in the act. Their demands include substantial prison terms, related fines, and the removal of the accused from their duties.
The case centers on the 25 March 2019 drill, when a platoon from the Legion Brigade conducted maneuvers to breach a merlon using four targets. The event took place at the Agost range. The presiding court is reviewing whether the actions during that exercise violated military discipline and safety protocols, and whether the sergeant and other officers bear criminal liability for the victim’s death.
No prior instructions
According to investigators, after the drill program concluded, the sergeant ordered a second target to be engaged, a move not previously included in the official drill plan. He allegedly fired from a prone position as the platoon prepared for the next phase of the exercise, claiming he acted without forethought about the consequences for the troops involved. Prosecutors say the sergeant directed the shot toward the ground, then the bullet struck the victim, causing a fatal wound.
Ballistics explanations presented during the hearing show the bullet hitting the victim at a close range while the solders operated at the front of the merlon. The incident prompted a formal inquiry into whether misjudgment or deliberate action led to the soldier’s death, and whether the sergeant bears sole responsibility or if others shared responsibility for the sequence of events.
“Improvised” exercise
The sergeant admitted to the court that, as platoon leader, he ordered the second target after completing the first attack on the merlon. He said he fired after the initial assault but maintained he did not fire the second threat. He described setting up the sequence himself and claimed he did not anticipate becoming the shooter of the wounded service member.
In his account, he insisted he never believed he could be responsible for the fatal shot and argued that the gunfire’s effect on the victim resulted from a specific ballistic trajectory. Other officers involved gave similar accounts of their observations and conclusions about the incident, with the defense and the prosecution presenting different interpretations of the same events.
Family conclusions
The victim’s family maintains that the sergeant was the one who fired the fatal shot. They point to ballistics reports and expert analysis that align the bullet recovered from the body with the weapon carried by the sergeant. They argue that the discharge was a direct act rather than an accidental consequence of chaotic battlefield conditions and stress. They emphasize that the evidence points to a deliberate action rather than an uncontrollable reaction under fire.
According to the relatives, the shooting should be treated as intentional rather than negligent. They believe the sergeant’s conduct constitutes more than reckless behavior and should be punished accordingly. They also accuse other officers of complicity or failure to prevent the actions that led to the tragedy.
Sergeant’s intention
The family contends that the sergeant intended to end Jiménez Cruz’s life, dismissing any claim that the act reflected mere recklessness. They charge him with criminal responsibility for the event and seek severe penalties for the sergeant and for others named in the case, arguing that misuse of power and violations of duty occurred. They also accuse some officers of concealment and disobedience, calling for accountability across multiple defendants.
Additionally, the prosecutors have pursued charges for abuse of power and obstructive conduct, while the defense asserts different interpretations of motive and the sequence of events. The court will determine the extent to which each defendant is liable for the tragedy and whether any actions taken after the incident affected the pursuit of justice.
The case remains a focal point of discussions about military discipline, the handling of drills, and the safeguards that protect soldiers during training. It highlights questions about how commands are issued, how risks are managed in high-stress environments, and how accountability should be applied when a drill turns deadly.