Antonio del Castillo and Eva Casanueva, parents of the young woman from Seville for whose murder in 2009 she was cMiguel Carcaño sentenced to 21 years and three months in prison; They have already formalized their challenge to the appeal filed by the defense of Francisco Javier García, known as El Cuco and convicted of covering up the aforementioned murder in 2009; against the sentence of the Criminal Court number seven that sentenced this young man and his mother to two years in prison for an crime of false testimony in their appearances as witnesses, in the trial held in 2011 against the adults accused of said crime.
the family lawyer by Martha del Castillo formalized last Monday his writ of challenge to the appeal filed by the defense attorneys of Cuco and his mother, in demand to annul the judgment of Criminal Court number seven, “for violation of the constitutional principle of impartiality and independence of the judge a quo”; and “repeat the trial with a different magistrate who will decide with freedom of criteria.”
According to the appeal of the defenses,judge Olga Cecilia Simón “was not able to abstract from the media pressurebut in the development of the hearing he made comments that made it clear that the process from which the present case derived had a definitive influence on his actions”, leaving “a glimpse of connections or interrelationships with a crime already judged, with a final sentence and with impossibility that he could be tried again.”
For example“affirmations” are blamed on Cuckoo’s refusal to answer questionswhich would reflect “the expression of an opinion already formed prior to the trial” and “an animosity and an opinion already formed about” the accused, pointing to the judge’s expression that “Spain was dyed in mourning” for the murder of Marta del Castillo, of great media impact at the time.
Furthermore, in the resource it is insisted that at the time of appearing in the 2011 trial, Cuco “was unaware” of the sentence of the Seville Court that confirmed his initial conviction for cover-up, with which he should never have been forced to testify “as a witness in a process in which his statements could incriminate him or lead him to a different procedural position in a procedure that he believed was alive against him “.
The communication of the sentence to the Court
El Cuco, according to his defense, “saw his legitimate rights violated at the time he went to testify”, assuring that “the communication to the lawyer on the day the sentence was handed down does not mean that the accused knew the meaning of the sentence and even more its firmness”; arguing that “who has been prosecuted retains his further right not to testify against himselfnot to confess guilt and is excluded from the obligation to take an oath or promise to tell the truth”.
But in the face of this, the lawyer for Marta del Castillo’s family alleges in her challenge of said appeal that the expressions expressed by Judge Olga Cecilia Simón during the trial held last May against Cuco and his mother, for the crime of false testimony for which they were finally convicted“in no case do they imply any animosity” towards the accused, as she herself explained to Europa Press, stating that the magistrate was speaking of events that had already occurred and that such an extreme “does not prejudge the substance of the matter” submitted to trial by the Court Criminal number seven of Seville.
Moreover, the lawyer for Marta del Castillo’s parents has argued that during that session, Cuco’s defense attorneys and his motherand “they did not protest” after listening to the words of the judge that they point out in the appeal.
As for the argument of the appeal that affects again the notification of the judgment of the High Court that confirmed Cuco’s initial conviction for covering up the murder of Marta del Castillo, the victim’s parents’ lawyer has warned that it is a question “already resolved by the jurisprudence”, with which he has stated that in his opposition to the appeal he reiterates that the young man, when he appeared in the 2011 trial for the aforementioned crime, “already knew the sentence” that ratified his conviction for cover-up and testified then in full capacity as a witness .
The lawyer Inmaculada Torres has also stated that although the defense alleges delays in the case, Marta del Castillo’s family has not “benefited” from any delays, especially emphasizing in her challenge to the appeal that the false testimony recognized byr the accused constitutes “a very serious fact”, since such extreme “influenced” in his opinion in the sentence relative to the crime, which as you have recalled was acquittal with respect to three of the accused, specifically Samuel Benítez, a friend of Carcaño; the latter’s brother, Francisco Javier Delgado, and his girlfriend.