Seville Court turned down the defense’s request in the case of Francisco Javier Garcia, commonly referred to as Cuco, the figure linked to the ongoing proceedings around the 2009 murder of Marta del Castillo. The court sentenced him, together with his mother, for perjury tied to a separate matter and set a potential punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment in connection with that false testimony matter.
An order issued on December 19 and released by the TSJA Office of Communications, from the First Division of the Seville Tribunal, outlines how the court addressed objections raised by Cuco’s defense and that of his mother, who had sought to annul the verdict delivered by the 7th Criminal Court that convicted them of perjury. The defense had argued for the cancellation of the court decision, the overturning of the verdict, the withdrawal of the trial, and a fresh trial conducted by a different magistrate, or a new sentence that could potentially acquit the defendant. Attribution: TSJA proceedings (see TSJA communications).
During the appeal, Cuco’s representative contended, among other points, that the proceedings violated the constitutional principles of judge independence and impartiality, and argued for a repeat trial before a different judge who would render a decision with greater freedom. The filings highlighted the heightened scrutiny and the emotional impact of Marta del Castillo’s family in this dispute.
Request for new hearing
The court noted that Cuco’s defense had also sought a brand-new sentence in which criminal sanctions would apply and that a fresh oral hearing had been requested before the Court. The defense argued that the hearing principles of orality and directness could reveal an error in the evaluation of the evidence, suggesting that the initial process might have overlooked or misinterpreted critical elements.
Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the private and popular accusations, however, opposed these requests, maintaining that the existing record did not justify reopening the trial on those grounds, and emphasizing the need for procedural stability in the appellate process.
An “extraordinary” resource
The First Section of the Seville Tribunal clarified that the so-called “second instance” remedy is an exceptional mechanism primarily used to address evidentiary deficiencies from the first trial. In this case, the appellants had elected to waive the remaining evidence offered in the appeal, effectively accepting as proven the facts as written in the record. The prosecutor’s office also noted that the indictment remained under review, signaling ongoing scrutiny of the charges on file.
Consequently, the First Section determined that a new trial should not be granted in the court of second instance. The court declared that the objections would be resolved without scheduling a new oral hearing, thereby preserving the procedural timeline and avoiding an additional retrial in this stage of the proceedings. Attribution: Seville Tribunal ruling, First Section.