A. A court in Valencia cleared Valencian rapper Nyno Vargas of the charge of personal injury, a verdict that contrasts with intense public scrutiny tied to his television past on programs such as Los reyes del barrio and Survivientes. The hearing concluded with no conviction and a potential prison sentence of three years hanging over his head, though the outcome appeared to hinge on fluctuating statements from several witnesses and alleged victims. At the moment the decision was delivered, those who had testified sometimes vouched for different versions of events, and some claimed to have observed the defendant only briefly or not at all during the incident in question.
“They were pursuing material gain and saw an opportunity to profit from the situation”, remarked Vargas. Outside the courthouse after the trial, he described the process as a forced risk, choosing to stand by his innocence rather than accept a compromised verdict. He asserted that he had not struck anyone and chose to remain in the courtroom rather than concede a charge he claimed to be unfounded. The singer maintained his stance that he did not commit the alleged act and insisted on the integrity of his account.
On the afternoon of May 23, 2021, the rapper said he had been out for a run with staff when he paused at a food establishment to take photographs with fans. One complainant admitted to having consumed cannabis and alcohol that day, and described the event with a vivid detail of the person wearing a deep maroon color. The testimonies centered on language allegedly directed at the complainant, followed by an injury that required hospital treatment. The complainant later stated that he woke up in the intensive care unit and could not identify who had struck him, even noting that several people had pointed to Vargas as the likely assailant. The accuser also said this was the first time he had seen the defendant and claimed others identified Vargas in the moment of the incident.
Two additional witnesses who had initially supported the claim later recanted, offering explanations such as having viewed the event from a distance or feeling nervous at the moment. The shifting nature of these testimonies played a central role in how the case was interpreted by the court and the public alike.
The prosecutor weighs the next move
With the evolving statements, the office in charge of the case ultimately withdrew the charges concerning false testimony. Still, the prosecutor argued for a three-year prison sentence on the charge that includes aggravating features along with a claim for compensation set at 3,000 euros. There was also consideration given to allowing the statements of three witnesses to be revisited at the hearing in light of the acquittals reached by the court.
Vargas’s defense team characterized the eyewitness accounts as problematic, arguing that some statements were inconsistent with what the complainant could recall given his intoxicated state. The lawyer suggested that the complainant might not have been attacked at all and even entertained the possibility that the individual could have fallen during the course of the incident. He noted that a hearing had been concluded without a prior formal order to proceed and questioned the fairness of the process.
After the verdict, Vargas spoke about the experience, saying that the entire episode felt unjust and that a lot of pressure from the conflicting testimony had clouded the truth. He asserted that the witnesses had not told the full story and that the truth eventually came to light during the course of the proceedings.
In sum, the case highlighted how conflicting testimonies and the notoriety of a public figure can influence legal arguments and public perception. It also underscored the challenges inherent in assembling a clear and consistent account of events when witnesses recount different versions under varying circumstances.