How long can the celebration take? The retrial of the Sala case is under review by the Alicante Court, where signals are expected to move quickly and the hearing repetition should not be delayed beyond a year. Chief Justice Juan Carlos Cerón assured that the machinery would be put in motion as soon as the Supreme Court issues its sentence, to determine when everything should return to its previous state. He added, “We will assess the decision and determine where nullity leads.”
The Sala case reached the ECtHR in January 2019 and was set for a jury trial. In a short time, Francesca Bru was appointed to oversee the People’s Court, and the trial was slated to begin a little over eight months later.
Given the differences in circumstances, it is not possible to predict whether signaling for a new trial would take the same amount of time. The first step will be selecting a new magistrate who will chair the jury for the People’s Court. The jury pool is renewed through a biannual lottery. The initial task for the new judge is to decide whether to issue a judgment on admissible facts or to uphold the previous decision. This choice frames the trial’s directions, including the focal points for questions, the witnesses to be summoned, and the evidence to be presented. The judge may also determine before the trial whether any legal questions should be raised by the parties to avoid unnecessary jury intervention.
The magistrate’s appointment occurs in shifts, following a strict order of entry as jury cases arrive at the Court. Cerón told this newspaper that it would be preferable to set a new date without more paperwork.
Although a new magistrate will take on the case, others will face the process for the first time as well. There is a new attorney for the Justice Administration, the head of the bureau, and the three officers assigned to the office who were elsewhere when the initial hearing occurred.
Another major question concerns the status of the Hearing Jury’s schedule. Judicial sources cited by this publication noted that studies over the last two years had kept the agenda largely up to date. Between now and summer, two murder cases are pending with defendants in custody, making speed essential. Additional cases from other courts are expected in the coming months, including the shooting death of a suspected drug trafficker in an urban area of El Campello, and another incident in Alicante where a man shot five times and took responsibility for injuries suffered in a clan clash.
An undesirable reason
The key difference between these processes and the Sala case is that, if they come before the Trial, their appointment is prioritized because the defendants are in jail and must be tried within four years. Miguel López has been on the loose since March 2017, so the charge is considered non-urgent.
Cerón highlighted the efforts of the jury office over the past year to clear the schedule. Twenty popular jury trials were pursued, aiming to accelerate multiple transactions each month and boost relevance. The chamber faced a traffic jam due to pandemic-related judicial holidays and the suspension of activities during extended quarantines.
All addresses and phone numbers of witnesses who testified at the Sala trial’s previous hearing are kept by the jury’s office. Prosecutors also noted that not every witness needs to be called; focus should be on those most likely to influence the parties’ arguments given what is already known about their potential contributions. Once the hearing is scheduled, the process of calling witnesses and jury selection will begin in earnest.
Other cancellations have included insufficient reasoning in the Wanninkhof case. One of the Supreme Court’s most remembered judgments on jury trial nullity concerns the 1999 murder of Rocío Wanninkhof in Mijas, Málaga, and the later exoneration of Dolores Vázquez. The case saw DNA evidence introduce a new suspect, Tony Alexander King, which helped identify genetic traces found on Wanninkhof’s body. Dolores Vázquez was cleared before the new trial and did not reappear in court. The Supreme Court often examines the motivation behind a jury’s verdict when deciding whether to overturn it. In the María del Carmen Martínez case, the initial conviction was overturned because the arguments presented were deemed insufficient. Within 48 hours, a new verdict acquitted the accused. The key challenge is that the first draft was destroyed, and the adequacy of the motivation for conviction was not properly assessed. The court’s rulings in such matters illustrate how crucial clear reasoning remains in the protection of due process and fair trials.