• First verdict: from guilty to not guilty in 43 hours
  • Verdict: The jury declares Miguel not guilty

The different interpretation that made the Judge's Law the magistrate who has presided over the already known as the crime of the Chamber and the accusations on the night of Friday, November 8, marked the hearing in which the judge returned the verdict to the jury.

As this newspaper advanced, the six women and three men who made up the popular court found Miguel López guilty of the murder of the widow of former CAM president Vicente Sala and 43 hours later, on Sunday, they considered him not guilty.

At the hearing on Friday, Judge Francisca Bru appreciated deficiencies in motivation and ordered them to correct them . Bru did not want to risk a possible nullity by a higher instance in case of appeal.

Prosecutor José Llor and the lawyer of the private prosecution exerted by the victim's son, lawyer Francisco Ruiz-Marco , considered that the bases listed by the magistrate to return the verdict did not comply with the law. A tense debate began then.

The jury gave validity to the proof of charge and did not value the proof of discharge, which supports the innocence of the accused person, but did not abound in why he took that path. Bru, then, invited them to assess the contraindications , to explain why they did not give value to the discharge test. The accusations, on the other hand, understood that it was not necessary; that the jury, they insisted, "does not have to pronounce in detail on the evidence."

Was the non-professional court asked too much? EL MUNDO has had access to the recordings of the audience that changed the judicial future of Miguel López. It was 22.16 on Friday, November 8 .

The magistrate began with an extensive explanation of the reason for the call.

-Magistrada : The record that has been delivered to me suffers from the succinct explanation of the reasons why they have declared proven or rejected to declare certain aspects as proven of certain aspects of the object of the verdict. In this appearance, as established in article 64, the tribunal is constituted and in the presence of the parties. For my part I have to explain the causes that justify the return specifying the way in which the defects must be corrected or the points at which new pronouncements must be issued. From the record that you have given me regarding several of the indications that you have indicated (the jury), the defect you suffer is that you do not identify the direct evidence by which you have reached that conclusion. I already explained that there was a series of testimony, documentary or expert evidence and it is not enough to say 'we believe this has happened', but they have to say 'we believe this has happened because in response to the testimony of this person, or another '. Or if for example they are contradictory, 'why we have given this person more credibility than the other'. Then, when you refer to some type of document you have to say the specific document or when you refer to the Novocar workers, you cannot speak in a collective but the concrete fact that you are talking about, what specific person of the testimonials that you practiced arrive at That conclusion. When it comes to experts if they opt for one of them they have to give a brief explanation of why they have opted for one of them and not for others. They have omitted any pronouncement on a series of tests that have been carried out, call them contraindications provided by the defense or scientific expert evidence on certain aspects in which they have omitted any pronouncement in this regard and that is the reason why I have to return the minutes to them. that supplant that foundation. Go to rest and resume tomorrow and when you have it ready, you will call me again.

The hearing did not end. The private accusation wanted to abound in the explanation of the magistrate .

-Francisco Ruiz-Marco: I have understood the first part perfectly, of course, but I have not understood the last part where you tell them that they have omitted pronouncements about ...

-M: Contraindications or tests that have been practiced on which they have omitted any pronouncement.

-FRM: Well ...

-M: No, look, I have a ruling from the Supreme Court for indictment of conviction ....

-FRM: No yes, but ....

-M: And jurors have to explain if they exist, uh, I can't say more. This act is mine. They have to explain certain tests that have been practiced here, let's say Scientific Pollicía or experts who have omitted any pronouncement that is evidence of discharge and must explain

-FRM: But juries don't have to pronounce on the evidence, your honor. Jurors do not have to explain why they believe that a fact is not proven.

-M: Excuse me, I'm not going to get into an argument with you.

At that time the prosecutor intervenes.

-José Llor: My protest is.

-FRM: Sure, the protest is recorded.

-J.LL: Because, excuse me, I don't see that there is any cause in article 63 of the return to the jury made by the magistrate.

-FRM: No way

- M: Well, since it's me who determines ...

-FRM: Well, honor that the protest is already because this is actually a continuation of the instructions given to the jury, eh, your honor where they were introduced ...

-M: I am explaining the content of article 64 and explaining to jurors why I return the minutes.

-J.LL: Yes but excuse me, can you tell me what part of article 63 is considered infringed?

-M: Article 63 relates to 61 and all jurisprudence determines that there must be a succinct explanation of the reasons why they have declared or ruled out to declare certain facts as proven.

-FRM: As proven honor. As tested yes but not as not tested.

-M: We're done, please.

-J.LL: Excuse me, the jury does not have to pronounce on a thing that does not consider proven.

-FRM: About something you don't consider proven, you don't have to say anything at all.

-M: (Addressing the jury). Pay attention to me because I am the one who has to write a sentence in which no vice of nullity is incurred.

-J.LL: Well, record my protest.

-FRM: Let my protest be recorded.

-M: It has already been recorded.

- FRM: This is amazing, this is amazing.

- The jury spokeswoman intervenes: Why do we have to cite the condemnatory discharge tests?

-Other juror: We have not understood what that is

-M: For example, a paraffin test was performed and you will have to justify why ....

-FRM: Your Honor ...

-M: Keep quiet please. I understand that they have to justify why they don't give it any value.

- FRM: Your Honor

-M: Please keep quiet. I rely on the Supreme Court ruling that the indications and contraindications have to be assessed.

-Letter Administration of Justice: losing a matter of honor, I understand that it is being addressed ....

-M: yes to jurors please but they don't stop bothering me.

-FRM: Your Honor, the exercise of Law ...

-LAG: Sorry sir, I am speaking. I am seeing that the magistrate is addressed to a different member to the one who has so far acted as a spokesperson and I would like to clarify it for the record.

-Jury: Yes that way, there has been a change.

-M: (to the jury) Well the first question you asked me, have I solved it?

-J: Yes. We also don't know where things have failed ...

-M: Well, with that suplan (interrupted by the LAG). The act is terminated.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Supreme Court
  • Valencia
  • Alicante
  • Events

Trial 'Crimen de los Sala': The die is cast for Miguel López

'Crime of the Sala'Miguel López, from guilty to not guilty in 43 hours

'Crime of the Sala'A waiting for the judge to write the sentence