At issue is a ruling from the Constitutional Court (TC) concerning the retrial of a murder case involving Maria del Carmen Martinez. The widow of Vicente Sala, who headed CAM, faced a suspension from the guarantee agency after accepting an amparo appeal filed by the sole defendant in the crime, Michael Lopez, who is the victim’s son-in-law. Experts in Constitutional and Procedural Law consulted for this publication say the decision does not represent an invasion of the powers of the Court of Cassation or a challenge to Jury Law. Instead, the ruling requires the Tribunal to weigh two critical concerns: whether serious irregularities in the first trial violated the right to a fair process, and whether Miguel López’s rights would be violated if a retrial were pursued as previously planned. This analysis hinges on whether the gathering of new facts or potential evidence could alter the outcome, given the acts previously found to be acquittals.
As this publication reported earlier, the initial hearing for what is described as a room safe concluded with Miguel López receiving an acquittal after irregularities surfaced in the processing of the decision. The Court of Cassation later annulled that hearing and credited the Court of Cassation itself. The popular jury had initially found López guilty of murder, but the presiding judge sent the verdict back because the grounds for the verdict appeared insufficiently reasoned. Two days later, the jury issued a second verdict of acquittal. The original conviction was not served on the parties and was nullified, making it impossible for prosecutors to verify whether the jury’s motivation was adequate. The Court of Cassation determined that these fundamental mistakes breached the right to a proper indictment and chose to ignore the trial and order a repetition. On the other side, Miguel López had been found not guilty at the first trial and thus was granted acquittal, a decision later sustained by the Community High Court of Justice. [Citation: Court records]
Professor of Procedural Law, Jose Maria Asencio, argues that the TC will need to balance two rights. When asked by this newspaper, he said, “The jury concluded there was insufficient evidence amid these irregularities, and the charges were left undefended. Which of these two rights should prevail?” He notes that a prior position of the Supreme Court held that acquittals cannot be reopened, and he observes a broader tendency to restrict recourse. He adds that the assessment by the warrant court would indicate whether the act in question constitutes a constitutional violation. If it did, the weight against retrying would be stronger; if not, there might be room for restraint in repeating the trial. He cautions, however, that the TC uses different evaluative tools than other criminal jurisdictions. [Citation: Asencio interview]
Prevention
Within this framework, the UA Constitutional Law professor, Jose Asensi, stresses that the preemptive move by the guarantee court was intentional. He believes that initiating a trial before a formal decision could infringe on the defendants’ fundamental rights. Therefore, he views the paralysis measure as not conflicting with the Court of Cassation and not contradicting Jury Law, though he concedes that proving contrary positions may be challenging for the Court of Cassation.
Jose Angel Camisón, a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Alicante, notes that the action taken by the body led by Cándido Conde Pumpido is aimed at assessing whether the amparo claim carries special constitutional significance and whether it affects the right to effective judicial protection and the presumption of innocence. He says the court will examine the case and the potential repetition of the proceedings was paused to avoid creating further harm. Camisón asserts that, although the judiciary has sped up response times, there is no fixed deadline for resolving this appeal. He also emphasizes that the measures in the Sala case were extraordinary and typically used sparingly, often reserved for post-event review.
In another view, lawyer and Constitutional Law professor Pigeon Helmets tells this publication that the Supreme Court’s cancellation of the trial was justified, but he highlights a dissenting individual vote by one Supreme Court judge who argued that the gross mistakes did not merit repeating the hearing. He notes that the private prosecution’s theses, represented by Francisco RuizMarco in the name of the victim’s eldest son, Vicente Sala, were considered by the Supreme Court in granting the annulment. [Citation: Supreme Court records]
– End of excerpt –