The lawyer Gonzalo Calay In his weekly column he addressed the case of challenge to Judge Crispiani in the trial of former judge Martín Ordoqui and Ricardo Dusit. “A judicial novel,” the lawyer called him.
“In the cause it is charged with Ordoqui and others involved, by passive bribery. That is, to receive bribes to grant benefits such as release or home arrests”, The lawyer reported. In addition, he was accused of organizing an illegal association.
As Caray explains, in the first place he judged it administratively, to define if he was going to dismiss it. They finally operated by applying the so -called “jury”, in order to analyze the testimonies and documentation. “Similar to an oral trial,” he said. “It is administrative, the worst sanction is a dismissal, which was what finally happened due to the seriousness of the facts that were discussed,” he said.
Among the testimonies that were recorded were Dr. Crispiani’s, who at that time was a appeal of cassation. “The jury ends, Ordoqui is dismissed, which also enables him to be arrested for his preventive detention, because until that moment he enjoyed fueros. The judicial process is continued and the instance of trial is reached, which is what we are today,” he said.
The Prosecutor’s Office presented 242 witnesses. Among them, Crispiani, who is the judge of the case, which makes it impossible for her to be as a declarant. “Procedurally cannot be. What happened was a material error of the Prosecutor’s Office,” said Caray.
“when I say material error I mean they were wrong to include it as a witness, because surely a list that existed at the time, in the instruction stage, they did not repair that it was the judge of the case,” he explained. The defense of the case wondered why he was as a witness, they consider her a favorable witness to her case theory, so, as Caray explains, the defense recounts her.
According to Calay, this initial challenge is based on basic incompatibility. “The saying says, you cannot be a judge and part, and in this case it is almost. Because just the opposite party, the prosecution who accuses, would be using it as a witness,” he said. “The defense makes this state”.
According to the lawyer, The judge responded to the initial approach firmly: “The terms you are using towards my person and towards my function is aggravating, and I am going to stay in office.” Given that response, the defense insisted. “The defense, when you read that pronouncement made by Crispiani, says, then, if you feel insulted, I also consider that you can be emotionally affected by any approach to the defense during the trial, because it already puts the other side of the sidewalk, and can harm my defendant.”
Calay explained that the second attempt for challenge was presented with new foundations. “Always, in short, who is harmed is not the defender, but who is being judged. First, they designated you as a witness, although later they gave you, but the other party considers you that you are valuable, so you will not be impartial, and in the second you will be emotionally affected, because you already have a kind of rivalry with the defenders, because you consider that we are injured.”
“All that has to be resolved by the rest of the members of the court. Today there was a hearing, perhaps it is being developed at this time, or perhaps ended, and what is going to be resolved promptly is this. If Crispiani will continue as a judge in the case or not, this can be appealed, it will not be resolved already,” said the lawyer.
Beyond the punctual dispute, Calay stressed the importance of society understanding the mechanisms of the criminal process. “I was also interested in bringing it so that society can know all these peculiarities that criminal proceedings have, and what many times lawyers, I do not know if this will be or not, but we are exposed to having to deal with particularities of the process, that we find a judge or a judge where we see that we do not have the pronouncements that it should have in the course of the process, it is not handled with the impartiality that is required, and this type of presentations are made.
Faced with that reading, it was clear: “I do not think it is a dilatory maneuver, more than anything taking into account colleagues who are working on this cause, I do not see them with those intentions. But we in the exercise of the defense, always all the elements that we have by hand and that within the law can favor our defendant, we have to use them.”
“When a cause is passed to oral trial, it rises to oral trial, there is an instance in which it must be analyzed whether or not to challenge the judges. Because there is a case with a judge in which that person had x problem, or a relative or a certain friendship, and that judge cannot or judge cannot resolve in the case because it can have an interest and there is a fear of the defense of the defense of the defense.
Related news :