The defense of Pablo Ibar, a prisoner of Basque origin who is currently being held in the Okeechobee prison (Florida), after being convicted of a triple crime, has presented a new appeal required by the Miami appeals court that he limited the length of the writing to almost half. The lawyer, who asked that his document not be reduced due to the importance and complexity of the case, has made another text, with all the “irregularities” committed throughout the process that, in his opinion, represent constitutional violations, and that should lead to a new trial.
Ibar, nephew of the former Gipuzkoan boxer ‘Urtain’, was found guilty of the triple crime that ended the lives of Casimir Sucharski, owner of a nightclub and owner of the house where the crimes were perpetrated, and of the young women Sharon Anderson and Marie Rogers.
As pointed out by the Pablo Ibar-Fair Trial Association, “the struggle” of the prisoner to prove his innocence “has been an obstacle course from the beginning, and it does not seem that it will be any different from now on.”
In this way, he explains that the lawyer Joe Nascimento, who represents the prisoner of Basque origin in the judicial process in which he is still immersed, has had to “overcome a new obstacle”, after being forced to modify the appeal document presented by the last July.
The Florida Court competent in the matter urged the lawyer to reduce by almost half the text that he had prepared and in which the arguments that support his request for the annulment of the life sentence that currently weighs on Ibar and the celebration of a new trial.
Once the new resource has been modified, it has already been reformed. The registration was carried out this past Friday before the Court of Appeals of the 4th District of the State of Florida, a body that had agreed to return the previous text, estimating that its length exceeded 10,000 words, the limit established for this type of procedure.
Nascimento, even though he was aware of this circumstance, drew up an appeal that exceeded the figure required by the judges, based on justified causes, such as the importance of the case, its complexity – with three trials already held and dozens of witnesses and expert reports, – and the delay that has existed, since these are events that occurred almost three decades ago.
For all these reasons, he asked the Chamber to admit the initial brief in all its breadth and where it reflected in detail the reasons for the appeal. However, the judges disregarded his demand and urged him to modify the document, a fact that harms the defense, since it prevents him from developing “with the precision that the case requires the injustices that were committed in the last trial,” as highlighted the Asociation.
The lawyer, therefore, has reconfigured his writing, although he maintains the same arguments that he already revealed in July. Joe Nascimento, who was part of the team of lawyers that defended Pablo Ibar in the previous trial, maintains his request for a repeat trial due to “the numerous irregularities and partiality decisions” incurred by Judge Dennis Bailey, who directed the last process, and which he accuses of violating constitutional rights.
Counsel for Broward County contends that the Broward County trial court “abused its discretion” and “made serious legal errors.” In this sense, Nascimento assures that “he violated the constitutional rights” of the accused to a fair and impartial jury, by denying, among other issues, “the motion of the defense to remove the jury from the courtroom when the State referred inadmissible manner to the constitutional right of the accused to remain silent, implying that his silence was an admission of guilt, which constitutes a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
It also understands that the same judicial body did not act impartially when it prohibited the defense from questioning “key” witnesses for the interests of the defendant, or when it admitted the statement about a photographic recognition conference of another witness who said he had seen the day of the events at Ibar aboard the Mercedes of Casimir Sucharski, one of the victims.
In this regard, the defense points out that the procedures put into practice by the agents who investigated the events “were unnecessarily suggestive” and led the witness “to a substantial probability of misidentification.” He also adds that the introduction of this test “was not innocuous.”
Joe Nascimento argues that the judge violated Ibar’s constitutional right to a process with all the guarantees and his right to contradiction, by prohibiting the defense from questioning the State specialist in DNA matters about previous cases of cross-contamination that occurred in the Broward County Sheriff’s Crime Lab.
In this line, he recalls that the Prosecutor’s Office provided for this trial, in a somewhat surprising way, a T-shirt that contained tiny samples of Pablo Ibar’s DNA. The defense has been arguing that said sample, in any case, was the result of contamination that occurred in the laboratory.
The appeal also criticizes the “inappropriate conduct” of prosecutor Charles Morton, who in the final argument denied Pablo Ibar his “constitutional right to a fair trial.” The lawyer believes that, once again, the judge abused his discretion when he dismissed Pablo Ibar’s protest after the prosecutor ended his report with an “inflammatory statement.” Chuck Morton went so far as to tell the jury to “not let this man get away with it and get away with murder.”
With the appeal now presented for the second time, Pablo Ibar intends to show that he “did not have any participation” in the three murders that are charged against him and that were committed 27 years ago at a home in Miramar, a town near Miami.
The new text presented by Nascimento will be transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office so that, in turn, it can make the allegations it deems appropriate. The defense will then have a new turn to reply to the prosecution’s arguments.
It will be then, when the Court of Appeals will examine the positions of the parties and will open a deliberation process before issuing its decision, which will be to repeat the trial again or deny the petition. The resolution, according to defense sources, could take a year. In the event that the appeal is unsuccessful in this phase, the defense will go to the Florida Supreme Court.
Pablo Ibar, who is currently incarcerated in the Okeechobee prison (Florida), was found guilty of the triple crime that ended the lives of Casimir Sucharski, owner of a nightclub and owner of the chalet where the crimes were perpetrated, and of young girls Sharon Anderson and Marie Rogers.
The three were killed by two individuals who broke into the house. The sequence of events was recorded by a video camera located in the living room of the house, which, at a certain moment, captures the face of a young man with Latino features that the Police identified with Pablo.
However, in the last trial held between 2018 and 2019, it was proven, even by experts for the prosecution, that said video did not have enough image quality to make any identification.
The Pablo Ibar-Justo Judgment Association continues to work on fundraising among institutions, agencies and also among citizens that allow the appeal to be paid. The budget for this phase is $ 200,000 (164,200 euros). The association maintains a crowdfunding campaign for this.