Watching the jurors leave the courtroom of the Provincial Court of A Coruña With a tired and relieved face, it is difficult not to internally pretend, with all the mental strength of which one is capable, that life can never put you in their shoes. Because no matter how much the police and judicial investigation, the testimonies of witnesses and experts, the recordings from the cameras on the Riazor promenade, the autopsy and the scientific evidence point towards a guilty verdict on several or all of Samuel’s alleged murderers, , having the lives of other people in your hand, of those people whose face you have scrutinized ad nauseam for weeks, seems like an undesirable circumstance.
When the judge announces the end of the hearingalmost at six thirty in the afternoon this Monday, the jurors get up with a gesture of fatigue and at the same time of rest. It’s been the longest day the longest jury trial ever held in Spain. It is an absolutely subjective perception, but from the public bench it seems that almost a month after it started, each and every one already has a clear verdict. That it is the same as the rest is another thing, that some can convince others is possible, and that is why it is also likely that the deliberations will be long and complex. How long they last, however, now depends solely on them.
Elena Pastorthe judge who presided over the process the murder of Samuel Luiz In the early hours of July 3, 2021 on the Riazor promenade, yesterday he gave the jury a hundred long questions, according to sources in the case, which they must answer and motivate to declare the five accused of killing Samuel guilty or innocent: Diego Mountain, Catherine Silva, Kaio Amaral Silva, Alejandro Miguez and Alejandro Freire.
The object of the verdict
During the morning, his lawyers, the prosecutor and the lawyers for the private and popular accusations agreed on the content of those questions, which make up what the Jury Law calls the object of the verdict. They are intended to establish whether Samuel’s death was due to a group murder or to a homicide; whether all those involved were responsible for it, and, if applicable, whether they were as perpetrators or accomplices; if there was treachery and cruelty; if two of them –Diego and Catherine– should be applied the aggravation of homophobia; if one – Kaio – can also be attributed the additional crime of robbery with violence; to two –Diego and Freire– the mitigating factor of acting under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and to the last of them, that of suffering from previous personality and behavioral pathologies.
“Get rid of all kinds of prejudices. I like them, I dislike them, I like them, I don’t like them… That doesn’t matter. Also forget about the media impactonly the facts are relevant,” said the judge, who instructed the jurors on how they must respect the essential legal principles of presumption of innocenceevaluate testimonial and documentary evidence according to logical and motivated reasoning, and never answer questions posed against the interests of the accused if they have the slightest reasonable doubt about the answer. “Have a free and active debate, participate, don’t just point out that you agree with an argument: explain yourself, motivate it,” he added.
Jury trials are a consequence of the constitutional provision that establishes that national sovereignty, and therefore the powers with which it is manifested, emanates and resides in the town. That is, in all of us. “The democratic State is characterized by the participation of the citizen in public affairs. Among them there is no reason to exception those referred to deliver justicebut on the contrary, a procedure must be established that satisfies this constitutional right in the fullest possible way,” reads the explanatory memorandum of the aforementioned Law.
Justice and democracy
The operation of the jury with respect to the purpose of the verdict responds to very guaranteeing democratic norms: seven votes to two are necessary – abstention is not contemplated – to consider a fact proven. that harms the interests of an accusedand 5 to 4 to do it with another who benefits you. But that is not the essential thing, nor what makes a verdict democratic. Because this does not derive from a mere more or less qualified majority of individual wills, but rather the formation of a single will.
Since this Monday night, the jurors are incommunicado and confined in a hotel at the exit of A Coruña, with police protection to guarantee that no one pressures them and nothing disturbs their judgment. But in addition to physical protection, Pastor also guaranteed them relief for any emotional burden they may feel, whether for fear of condemning an innocent person or letting a guilty person go free: “Forget about the penalties requested by the Prosecutor’s Office and the parties. You do not impose them, that is up to me,” he told them.
Perhaps in his words lies the most worthy reflection of the memory of Samuel. As much as it scares us, we must put ourselves in the shoes of the jury, and accept what they decide, because that is democracy, and that should be justice: “You see the facts and I apply the law. The accused have had a fair trialgive you a fair verdict so that I can apply a fair sentence“, concluded the judge.
#judge #jury #Samuel #case #Give #fair #verdict #apply #fair #sentence
