Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 2:26:50 GMT -5
Alawyer reports that a judge has not allowed him to intervene in a trial because his client, the accused, did not appear. According to this lawyer, the person in charge of the Investigative Court number 20 of Madrid also told him that it was her usual way of proceeding . These facts represent, according to various sources consulted, a very serious violation of the right to defense.
The lawyer, José Domínguez, tells Economist & Jurist that, upon arriving at the hearing for a minor crime, he found that the person he was defending and whom he had not been able to contact, was not present. At that moment, with a closed microphone, the judge tells him that “since his Fax Lists client has not come, I am not going to let him intervene in the trial .” Domínguez confesses that, at that moment, he was “flat-mouthed” and replied that, regardless of whether the accused was present, he had the right to participate because, otherwise, the right to defense (referred to in article 24 of the Constitution) would be violated.
According to his story, the judge responds that they will record it but that she will not give him the floor. Once the recording begins, the lawyer makes the protest and indicates that he must intervene. In defense of the accused, the lawyer intended to allege the drug dependence situation in which the person found himself or the state of need that would justify the starving theft of which he was accused. The judge, however, cut him off while he was saying it and repeated that his intervention was not appropriate, to which the lawyer requested that the situation be recorded .
What caught my attention the most is that the judge said that this happened every day. “This is an outrage ,” she laments. Domínguez, who has requested the recording of the hearing, will wait for the ruling and if the client is convicted, he will appeal, alleging, first of all, the violation of the right to defense. The lawyer assures that he has not experienced a situation like this in all the time he has been practicing. He knows that the presence of a lawyer is not mandatory in this type of case in which the requested sentence is less than two years, but if the lawyer is there and has been summoned , “he should let me speak, question and formulate conclusions, just like the prosecutor. ”, he emphasizes. Although, for the moment, he prefers to be cautious, he is “convinced that if there is a conviction, the appeal is won,” emphasizes Domínguez, who has already filed a complaint with ICAM's Defense of the Legal Profession and does not rule out, when the time comes, doing what own before the General Council of the Judiciary.
The lawyer, José Domínguez, tells Economist & Jurist that, upon arriving at the hearing for a minor crime, he found that the person he was defending and whom he had not been able to contact, was not present. At that moment, with a closed microphone, the judge tells him that “since his Fax Lists client has not come, I am not going to let him intervene in the trial .” Domínguez confesses that, at that moment, he was “flat-mouthed” and replied that, regardless of whether the accused was present, he had the right to participate because, otherwise, the right to defense (referred to in article 24 of the Constitution) would be violated.
According to his story, the judge responds that they will record it but that she will not give him the floor. Once the recording begins, the lawyer makes the protest and indicates that he must intervene. In defense of the accused, the lawyer intended to allege the drug dependence situation in which the person found himself or the state of need that would justify the starving theft of which he was accused. The judge, however, cut him off while he was saying it and repeated that his intervention was not appropriate, to which the lawyer requested that the situation be recorded .
What caught my attention the most is that the judge said that this happened every day. “This is an outrage ,” she laments. Domínguez, who has requested the recording of the hearing, will wait for the ruling and if the client is convicted, he will appeal, alleging, first of all, the violation of the right to defense. The lawyer assures that he has not experienced a situation like this in all the time he has been practicing. He knows that the presence of a lawyer is not mandatory in this type of case in which the requested sentence is less than two years, but if the lawyer is there and has been summoned , “he should let me speak, question and formulate conclusions, just like the prosecutor. ”, he emphasizes. Although, for the moment, he prefers to be cautious, he is “convinced that if there is a conviction, the appeal is won,” emphasizes Domínguez, who has already filed a complaint with ICAM's Defense of the Legal Profession and does not rule out, when the time comes, doing what own before the General Council of the Judiciary.