Expectation until the last minute in the 'Sala Case': a deficiency slows the verdict

The judge-president of the Court of the Jury of the Sala case has returned the verdict to the jury at the edge of ten o'clock this Friday in order to correct a series of deficiencies , so that the decision of the non-professional court will be known throughout the Saturday because early in the day will resume the deliberation thus squeezing the first 48 hours contemplated by the law to reach a conclusion. The judge has summoned the jury and the parties to a hearing, where they have been informed of the return of the verdict.

With this clarification that must be made by the six women and three men who are part of the people's tribunal, Miguel's decision on the future judicial process is delayed . The expectation at the gates of the judicial headquarters was very intense tonight as the firstborn of the victim, Vicente Sala, accompanied by his family and many friends, and a large number of media have come. The first to arrive after the magistrate was prosecutor José Llor, followed by Miguel's defense lawyer, Javier Sánchez-Vera. The last to arrive was the lawyer of the private prosecution Francisco Ruiz-Marco. The defendant, Miguel López, son-in-law of the deceased, did not have to appear since tonight's hearing was intended to address the deficiencies that the magistrate has noticed in the object of the verdict .

This Saturday, the jury court will issue its guilty or not guilty verdict on Lopez, the only one accused of the crime, and for whom the accusations request 24 and a half years in prison. Both the Prosecutor's Office and the victim's son believe that the defendant killed Mari Carmen Martínez for control of the family's business holding. A thesis that is what, from the beginning, the Police put on the table . For its part, the defense understands that its sponsor is a head of Turkish victim of circumstances that in no way link him with the murder. The jury will then decide whether the evidence indicated is sufficient to issue a guilty verdict or, on the contrary, the presence of direct evidence that, in this matter, is not necessary.

Tension

The jurors are deliberating and incommunicado since midday last Thursday, two days in which the tension is maximum and the eternal wait for the parties involved in the trial for the crime of the widow of former CAM president Vicente Sala . The jury is deliberating since then if Miguel López is guilty or not guilty of the murder of his mother-in-law Mari Carmen Martínez.

The contours of the crime - without direct evidence but with abundant evidence and the judge's warnings that the defendant must prevail in doubt (in dubio pro reo) - make the six women and three men who make up the non-professional court face a complex situation . From Thursday they remain totally isolated and deliberating . Neither mobile nor any contact with the outside. They are guarded by two agents of the National Police Corps who accompany them when they need to leave the room to go to the bathroom or have a coffee.

So they spent all Thursday, until around nine o'clock at night they were taken to the hotel for the night. Early in the morning, the six women and three men who make up the jury returned to the judicial headquarters to continue the deliberation. They have to answer a questionnaire of 12 questions. The difficulty of reaching a verdict is that if it is guilty, seven of the nine votes are necessary, while if it is not guilty, five of nine are enough.

The deliberations will end when there is a verdict, at which time the magistrate president of the court will be notified that, in turn, will urgently summon the parties, including the defendant Miguel López, so that in the courtroom and at the hearing public hear the determination of the jury.

To reach a decision, jurors must answer impartially and "in conscience" to the twelve questions posed by Judge Bru, which must include a "succinct" explanation so that, later, the court's judgment can be substantiated. Agreeing the questionnaire was not an easy task. At the beginning of Thursday morning, there was a questionnaire close to half a hundred questions that were finally reduced to 12 after Judge Francisca Bru presented them to the parties. The Prosecutor's Office, the private prosecution and the defense took almost three hours to agree, from 9.30 to 13.30.

The first three questions were raised by the accusations and they deal with whether Lopez shot his mother-in-law after giving him the keys, if he possessed the used weapon (not found) and if the shots caused the death of María del Carmen Martínez. The next four issues of the verdict were included by the defense and indicate whether the jury believes that the crime could have been committed by an unknown third party and if it could have been a robbery by an unidentified person. Two other questions refer to whether they appreciate the crime of murder and the illicit possession of weapons, and another question points to whether, in view of the 17 sessions, they have observed a handfulness in what happened, regardless of whether or not they were the accused.

Another issue deals with civil liability and the degree of kinship of the family, an issue that will be used for the issue of compensation and if there is a lack of family. Finally, in the case of a verdict, jurors must decide whether they believe there have been undue delays, after almost three years of instruction, although at this point the magistrate has clarified to the jury that this case has proved particularly complex.

After insisting that in case of doubt it is necessary to decide “in favor of the inmate” (in dubio pro reo), the judge-president of the Jury Court emphasized that all the parties involved in this case agree that there is no direct evidence but they are of an «indiciary» nature, and he pointed out that they have, where appropriate, an «accredited» probative value for a conviction.

In any case, the magistrate admitted that these types of evidence are "tremendously difficult even for judges" because of the complexity for their assessment, and taught them how they should study the evidence.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project