The Superior Court of Justice of Aragon (TSJA) has rejected the appeal of the defense of Rodrigo Lanza, who requested that the second trial of the so-called "crime of the braces" be declared void.
The court confirms the sentence of 20 years in prison for a crime of murder for ideological reasons, and thus rejects that the trial be held a third time.
The first trial, in which Lanza was sentenced to five years, was annulled by the TSJA when it considered that the jury did not sufficiently motivate its answers after the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office and the private accusations.
On this occasion, it was the defense who challenged it, claiming that the magistrate was not partial and that the jury did not sufficiently motivate its verdict.
"The jury explains succinctly, but more than enough, why it comes to consider each of the relevant facts to be proven, identifying the sources and means of proof on which they are based and this without resorting to contradictions or inconsistencies," he replies the TSJA validating the action of the jury, which considered that the defendant was aware that the blows he inflicted on the victim, Víctor Laínez, could cause his death and that he did so maliciously, that is, that he committed murder.
Regarding the defense allegation that the magistrate violated Lanza's right to presumption of innocence by not informing the magistrate to the jury that if after deliberation she had doubts, they should decide in the most favorable sense to the accused.
"The presiding magistrate has complied with the obligation imposed by art. 54 LOPJ to inform the jury of the principle in dubio pro reo, and she does so in a literal way, by reading the precept itself," says the TSJA in a response to the appeal, also pointing out that "the defense attorney did not make any protest or allegation at the time the magistrate gave the jury instructions."
Likewise, the TSJA rejects other allegations regarding the action of the magistrate, such as that she did not instruct the jury "properly on the voting rules."
Among the 13 reasons presented by the defense to annul the trial, there was also defenselessness when considering that the magistrate interrupted it when she exercised her right to have the last word: "The magistrate has only interrupted when she has considered that she did not adhere to what was pertinent. Specifically, , when the accused was exposing facts related to the parties and penalties that he had been subjected to in prison, the magistrate indicating that those facts were not being prosecuted and once he had already explained them; when the accused referred to what happened in the previous trial annulled and, finally, on two occasions due to the reiteration of the defendant's arguments when presenting his version of what happened at the time of the attack, "says the Supreme Court.
Rodrigo Lanza's lawyer, Endika Zulueta, also affirmed that the magistrate took a position in favor of the accusations and showed animosity against the defense by creating a hostile environment against her, such as not initially allowing the defendant's handcuffs to be removed.
"It is not possible to understand to what extent this manifestation of the magistrate could condition the verdict of the jury," responds the TSJA.
"In the present case, the members of the Police who were guarding the accused advised that the handcuffs should not be removed and, despite this, the presiding magistrate agreed to the defense's request and they withdrew, so this allegation is surprising" , Add.
The defense can still appeal the sentence before the Supreme Court.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more
Supreme court
Justice
Courts A divided CGPJ makes six appointments by the minimum and only one of the Supreme Court
JusticeDolores Delgado assaults the Board of Prosecutors raising only his relatives
Courts The Supreme Court asks the Court of Accounts to report on the money embezzled in the 'procés'
See links of interest
Work calendar
Spain - Greece, live
Asvel Villeurbanne - Real Madrid
Valencia Basket - FC Bayern Munich