jose vera, a criminal lawyer, assured that the defense of the defendants was not the best: “The lawyer only denied the accusation, raised the acquittal and only later hinted at the idea of a simple homicide without saying why.” He also referred to the lack of prison culture of the accused. “They firmly believed in what the lawyers told them to the point that they wanted to be present when the ruling was read, they believed that they could be acquitted,” he stressed in Fontevecchia modeby net tv and RadioProfile (FM 101.9).
Society insists that the sentence must be fair and exemplary. When does the pressure of public opinion end up being counterproductive and against the law?
In Fernando’s trial there is a fourth vote, which is that of society. Not only the three judges decide, who are conditioned in this situation.
In any case, the penalties will be harsh because the act was very serious.
Is it correct that everyone has the same penalties and was it a mistake on the part of the defendants to have the same lawyer for everyone?
The decision that it be the same lawyer was what exceeds that they have remained silent despite the fact that they were in a very serious situation for the sentence. If any declared to be in a better position, there would be conflicting and conflicting interests.
Lucio and Fernando, and the future murdered
They continued with the silence during the whole process, there were only slight feints to say something more.
To think that for a technical matter they are going to be acquitted is ridiculous. I hope that the court can precisely justify how it arrives at that ruling devoid of any social pressure.
Would a more effective defense have been possible for them, if they resorted to another strategy?
But that must have started in the instruction, right there they had to be divided into two or three groups and explain, and from there proofs are provided. At that time the detainee has to give his version.
Both the individual victim and the prosecutor accused and tried to convincingly recreate that spontaneous conspiracy and that treachery that, in some of these young people, can be accredited.
“Involve even if you are afraid”: the emotional letter from a friend of Fernando Báez Sosa hours before the verdict
The marked difference between the actions of each of the youngsters in the crime and that they are all sharing the same lawyer and defense, does it also speak of a certain cohesion that produces the type of friendship that they have in a sort of “all for one”? and one for all”?
They raise several questions. When they are detained, the protection is given by the group in front of their cellmates.
Rugby has a different perspective from other sports, Much is said about the sense of belonging and chivalry, which is hardly respected at all.
The person who is detained and who does not have a prison culture firmly believes in what the lawyer tells him, placing great hope that there will be a good solution.
Note that in the case of Lucio Dupuy, the two young women did not want to be there on the day the ruling was read. Instead they they all want to be present, perhaps convinced that they will receive a low sentence or even acquittal.
Baez Sosa Case | Dolores, Marcos Paz or Campana: where the rugbiers will stay after the sentence
So, specifically, the defense system that the defendants carried out was a mistake…
There are defense modes, the error is given by the subsequent result. Here, not everyone has the same responsibility, however, everyone accepted it in silence and without reproach.. This is taken into account in the courts.
The lawyer only denied the accusation, proposed an acquittal, and only later hinted at the idea of a simple homicide without saying why. He also raised the nullity that they did not understand the accusation is something ridiculous.
There is surely going to be a divisive situation from today. Here you have to work on a cassation appeal because it is a very serious situation that compromises everyone.
AM FM
You may also like
