Pau Rigo, during a home robbery in 2018, argues that the Public Prosecutor cannot demand a retrial. His lawyer, Jaime Campaner, has asked the Balearic High Court to not even admit the Prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal ruling. The claim is simple: the public ministry cannot cling to alleged errors in the trial decision after the fact because it did not seek correction or protest at the time. “He missed his chance,” the attorney states in a brief filed last week.
Rigo’s case centers on the jury verdict, which found that the man committed homicide under a state of mental disturbance but did so with insufficient votes to prove that theory beyond reasonable doubt. The Public Prosecutor’s office sought a four-year prison term for homicide with an incomplete defense of legitimate defense. It argues that the verdict is null and that the trial must be redone due to those alleged flaws.
Campaner counters that the Prosecutor cannot raise these issues now because no objections or requests for changes to the jurors’ instructions were raised during the trial. The lawyer contends that it is unacceptable for the state to raise errors in a request for reconsideration when they did not detect or complain about them at the time. “Silence cannot be stored away and then used to gain the upper hand against the person,” he argues. He therefore asks the Balearic High Court to dismiss the Prosecutor’s appeal and, in turn, to uphold Rigo’s acquittal.
The counsel also asks that, should the Prosecutor’s appeal be admitted, it be rejected. Campaner reiterates the arguments he has maintained since taking over the defense after the trial. He maintains that the jury’s verdict does not contain serious defects, as the Prosecutor claims, and that it is fully valid to declare the elder man innocent.
According to his approach, the jury “unanimously found that the only proposition essential to determining the charge of intentional homicide was not proven.” With that conclusion, the attorney argues, the rest of the votes on potential extenuating circumstances and defenses became unnecessary, and the later identified flaws triggered this unprecedented legal tangle.
In short, the defense asserts that the jury verdict adequately addressed the central charge and that any review should focus on what was essential to the homicide determination rather than reopening a broader reexamination of the trial’s every detail. The case underscores how procedural timing and the way objections are raised can influence whether a trial is revisited and who benefits when an appeal is filed years after a verdict. The court has yet to decide whether the appeal will be entertained and what revision, if any, will follow. The matter raises questions about the balance between prosecutorial oversight and the rights of defendants in jurisdictions where verdicts can hinge on nuanced interpretations of intent and mental state.
Meanwhile, the broader discussion continues about how mental state defenses are evaluated in homicide cases and how juries are instructed to weigh expert testimony and evidentiary standards. The outcome of this motion could set a precedent for future cases in which prosecutors seek to challenge verdicts after the trial has concluded, especially in situations where the defense maintains the jury acted within the bounds of the law and the evidence presented. As the legal teams prepare their positions, observers note that the balance between procedural fidelity and substantive fairness remains delicate, with the potential to influence how similar cases are handled down the line.