Thursday, October 28

Maje’s defense refers to the “parallel trial” to request the nullity of the process

Maje, during one of the trial sessions.  |  INFORMATION

Maje, during one of the trial sessions. | INFORMATION

The defense lawyer of María Jesús Moreno, sentenced to 22 years for the murder of her husband, the noveldense engineer Antonio Navarro, has requested the annulment of the process or, failing that, the annulment of the sentence to soften the charges against her client – he is willing to be sentenced for a homicide, but for fewer years.

This is how he expresses it in the appeal filed last week and which is based, fundamentally, on three issues: the alleged parallel trial that, according to him, has conditioned the jury’s decision, the lack of motivation – “even succinct”, arrives to say- the verdict and the “excesses” of the magistrate in what he understands as an excess when it comes to “completing” what was said by the People’s Court.

In an extensive brief of 78 pages, he focuses his efforts on convincing the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, which is the one who will have to resolve the appeal, that the jurors reached the verdict of guilt because they did not know how to abstract from the news published before and during the trial with patronizing arguments. “No matter how tactful the jury was selected, the reality is this and the surprise of a unanimous verdict (after a long and complex trial), delivered in three hours [en realidad fueron seis], highlighting as ‘elements of conviction’ the demonstrations of the police and the change of statement of Mr. Rodrigo, precisely elements with which some media hammered every day, account in our opinion of the contamination, humanly understandable, suffered by the members of the Jury ».

However, to support his thesis he lists 14 newspaper articles -twelve of them are from Levante-EMV- and a television program, all of them long before the trial was held. In fact, it does not include a single piece of news of the twelve days that the oral hearing lasted.

Not only does he consider that this media coverage of the case affected the jury, but he also relates some of the magistrate’s nominations in the sentence with that sphere. Thus, he considers, at a certain moment, that the sentence builds “a distorted image” of his client when the magistrate collects “the alleged cold blood upon arrival at home, sending messages to her husband as an alleged alibi, behavior upon arrival to his mother’s house, attitude when declaring, etc … ».

And he adds: “At this point in the sentence, a kind of guilt is being sought for the character or author, so proscribed in our State of Law.” And he adds: “This was an idea more typical of the parallel trial that, like others, now appears constructing a kind of moral disapproval based on supposed attitudes that do not agree with the evidence given.”

He even reproaches the judge that, due to his angle of vision at the trial and given that the defendant was wearing a mask, little could he see her reactions.

In short, Boix’s defense asks, first of all, the nullity of the trial due to the involvement of this “parallel trial”, the lack of reasons for the verdict, the bankruptcy of the presumption of innocence based on the fact that the elements of conviction of the jury they do not constitute proof – “one ends up being condemned without proof,” he says. The lawyer even denounces the “excess on the part of the presiding magistrate when structuring new elements of evidence that are not such (…) and that entails an excess in his functions.”

In his appeal, however, María Jesús’ lawyer opens other alternatives to this nullity, in the event that the TSJ does not admit his arguments.

His first subsidiary proposal is to annul the sentence imposed on Maje to leave out the treachery, since he considers that the way to kill, in any case, was chosen and executed by the perpetrator, that is, the other convicted person, Salvador Rodrigo.

In the event that the TSJ does not appreciate her main argument, it is willing to accept that she be convicted of intentional homicide, which would mean a reduction in the sentence. Reduction that would increase if the following alternatives triumph, such as that of being sentenced only for an aggravating circumstance: either the treachery or kinship is applied, but never both.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *