El abogado Fito Baqué, ofrece su perspectiva sobre el juicio en curso. Explica el proceso de deliberación del jurado y la importancia de las pericias psicológicas. Además, plantea preguntas intrigantes sobre ciertos aspectos misteriosos del caso que aún no se han resuelto. Además hablamos con HUgo lópez Carribero, abogado de Nina, la empleada doméstica de las víctimas.
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
📺 a24.com/vivo
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
📺 a24.com/vivo
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00With whom are you? With our friend?
00:02Exactly.
00:04Yes, exactly.
00:06An exclusive artist.
00:08It's true.
00:10Exclusive lettering
00:12from our house and from who, when, where.
00:14Well, Fito,
00:16you were in the audience,
00:18now we are in an intermediate room,
00:20so that people understand.
00:22What is being done now with the jury?
00:24Are they being given explanations?
00:26The jury will then deliberate.
00:28You are not as much in the middle of the right
00:30as you are usually.
00:32You know,
00:34I miss you guys,
00:36so this is a way to miss you less.
00:38Very good, very good.
00:40It's like this.
00:42What happened recently,
00:44which you already know,
00:46were the allegations
00:48or closing statements,
00:50where each of the parties
00:52says, from the evidence they saw,
00:54during the whole debate,
00:56they make a summary
00:58to the jurors,
01:00to say, look, this evidence favors me,
01:02it's guilty, this evidence favors me,
01:04the defendant is innocent.
01:06After that,
01:08an intermediate room was arranged,
01:10where now the parties,
01:12that is, the prosecutors,
01:14the plaintiffs,
01:16and the defense lawyers
01:18will meet with the judge
01:20to discuss
01:22what instructions will be given
01:24to the people's jury.
01:26After that,
01:28that is done in the judge's office,
01:30not in the presence of anyone.
01:32The jurors are called
01:34and given the instructions
01:36for them to deliberate.
01:38What are the instructions?
01:40They are explained,
01:42for example,
01:44what are the legal qualifications
01:46that they would have to judge
01:48if it is a homicide.
01:50Excuse me, Mefito,
01:52all the instructions are given
01:54and the probationary agreements
01:56are passed,
01:58if there were agreements,
02:00so that they also,
02:02at the time of deliberation,
02:04have those probationary agreements,
02:06in which the prosecution
02:08and the defense agreed.
02:10All this, with the instructions,
02:12is given to the judges.
02:14But first the lawyers
02:16meet with the judge
02:18and only then
02:20do they agree
02:22and the judge decides
02:24what instructions he will give.
02:26He can even give them
02:28if it is unimpeachable.
02:30They can decide
02:32if it is not criminally responsible
02:34for unimpeachable, for example.
02:36Then all the instructions
02:38are given.
02:40This deliberation,
02:42which is very interesting,
02:44which is going to open the game now,
02:46which is the future of what is coming
02:48What happens?
02:50Do the 12 have to agree
02:52in the sense of
02:54hey, we both conclude that he is guilty?
02:56Or what happens if suddenly cracks open,
02:58someone has doubts,
03:00someone believes otherwise,
03:02in solitude, or two people say
03:04no, no, for me it was not proven
03:06that he entered the house,
03:08for me it is not proven
03:10that he had the gun in his hands.
03:12What happens there when there is
03:14some space of dissent?
03:16No, look,
03:18for qualified homicide,
03:20which is perpetual,
03:22the sentence, which can be
03:24either because they were ascendants,
03:26in this case, or for the use of firearms,
03:28or with premeditation,
03:30or with allegory,
03:32there the 12 have to agree.
03:34If there is one who does not,
03:36they go to vote
03:38if it is a simple homicide,
03:40if there is any attenuation circumstance
03:42that instead of being perpetual
03:44for 8 to 25 years,
03:46there, look, this is very difficult
03:48to understand the first time,
03:50then very easy.
03:52Of the 12, if there are 10
03:54who find him guilty,
03:56that's it, he is guilty.
03:58But simple homicide,
04:00it is not the qualification of this trial.
04:02Yes, in this same qualification,
04:04but you go down,
04:06but first they have to vote
04:08if it is qualified, 12.
04:10For the maximum they have to be 12,
04:12there it goes down.
04:14For any other crime,
04:16it goes down to 10.
04:18Now,
04:20if there are 8 who say
04:22that he is guilty,
04:24it is called stagnant trial.
04:26For 3 times they have to get together again
04:28the judges to see if someone changes.
04:30Or they go up to 10 to condemn,
04:32or they go down to 7 to absolve.
04:34If they are still tied
04:36or stagnant,
04:38between 8 and 9,
04:40for more than 3 times
04:42they have to do the trial again.
04:44But I want to tell you something
04:46about what I saw today, Pablo.
04:48There is a person in all this trial
04:50who is the prosecutor
04:52who was in charge
04:54at the beginning,
04:56that today at the beginning
04:58of the opening allegations,
05:00what is the importance
05:02was forceful
05:04and detailed.
05:06And then he left
05:08to Dr. Musso
05:10who left.
05:12The distribution of roles,
05:14how he plays,
05:16a woman was introduced,
05:18Dr. Asemería, very good,
05:20smart prosecutor,
05:22but she had an opening allegation.
05:24I tell you the truth,
05:26I'm like in a Formula 1 race
05:28for those who like Formula 1.
05:30And also because I'm studying.
05:32The infant is in the Maradona trial
05:34and the judge is the same.
05:36I want to thank you for having you
05:38because I find it very interesting
05:40that someone who knows this
05:42can explain to us how it is working
05:44or how it will work,
05:46who else the Argentine justice
05:48in cases of trial by jury.
05:50Not only does he explain it in a didactic way,
05:52but he is a witness of what is happening
05:54in the reference case.
05:56You will not find it anywhere else.
05:58Thank you very much.
06:00I give you the word a little Claudio
06:02and we return with Fito.
06:04Hello, dear Doc.
06:06Dear Fito, friend.
06:08Today we were discussing a very interesting topic
06:10that I think is what is coming,
06:12because I think that you
06:14with the Maradona case
06:16are also going to make history.
06:18It is like the beginning of a new
06:20legal window in the country,
06:22which is the emotional evaluation
06:24of the jury.
06:26Today there was a small debate
06:28with Dr. Hugo
06:30about the fact that for certain
06:32emotional expressions,
06:34such as crying,
06:36certain faces of compunction
06:38and emotionality,
06:40the nullity or the apartment
06:42of some jurors could be asked.
06:44To what I said,
06:46we have to struggle and give again
06:48with respect to what is understood
06:50by the subjectivity of the jury,
06:52because the jury is not an expert.
06:54The jury evaluates according to their good
06:56understanding with evidence,
06:58but it is impossible not to get excited.
07:00It has a tendency to one side
07:02and to the other, to one side.
07:04Now, what I want to ask you,
07:06specifically, is
07:08does the jury have access
07:10to psychological tests?
07:12Can they have access?
07:14The jury has access
07:16to all the evidence offered by the parties
07:18and that is reproduced in the debate.
07:20That is,
07:22a psychological test
07:24was made,
07:26the psychologist was offered
07:28as a witness,
07:30he has to answer
07:32all the questions asked by the prosecution
07:34and the re-questions,
07:36if he is an expert of the prosecution,
07:38and the re-questions
07:40made by the jury.
07:42I am going to say this,
07:44I make the distinction,
07:46because the way to ask a witness
07:48does not have to have
07:50subjective or captive questions.
07:52He can, when he is not your witness,
07:54ask subjectively.
07:56Subjectively is yes or no.
07:58As I said before,
08:00that is subjective.
08:02Mr. Perito, you made a test like this,
08:04did it come out that he was crazy?
08:06No.
08:08If you want to clarify something,
08:10I am asking you,
08:12tell me yes or no.
08:14And you are handling the witness
08:16when the witness is not yours.
08:18If you can, if the test benefits you,
08:20you offer it,
08:22and if you offer it,
08:24these things that remain
08:26bouncing in the mind of the jury.
08:28But here there is a certain resistance
08:30to the jury.
08:32I am going to tell you something,
08:34the technical judge is still the most important
08:36in the process, because he directs
08:38what test is going to be accepted
08:40and he challenges me four times,
08:42or he tells me that I asked wrong,
08:44or he shouts at me and the jury
08:46look at me as if they were fried potatoes.
08:48So the technical judge is still important.
08:50But he is the one who directs the process, right?
08:52Yes, but he is the one who gives you the instructions,
08:54he is the one who gives you the test,
08:56he is the one who rejects your proposals.
08:58But the popular judges,
09:00those twelve judges,
09:02I can assure you that they are not wrong, Pablo.
09:04It does not matter what they fail,
09:06because the twelve people
09:08form a different and heterogeneous
09:10will to the will of each one.
09:12In other words,
09:14everything is a will.
09:16There are many millennials
09:18in this jury.
09:20I want to add
09:22Hugo López Carribero,
09:24who is with us,
09:26a reflection on everything.
09:28Tell Hugo
09:30that the other day I asked him
09:32if Nina had said
09:34that she had heard PASO
09:36and he told me no.
09:38Tell him that we found it
09:40on a television program where Nina says
09:42that day she heard PASO when she arrived.
09:44Tell us Hugo, because it is important,
09:46especially for the defense of the river itself,
09:48that if there had been people
09:50in the house,
09:52then there would be a possibility of a coup.
09:54Taking into account that this
09:56was said by your representative, right?
09:58No, bro.
10:00I address
10:02and refer to
10:04what I know of the cause.
10:06I know the cause by heart because I was the lawyer
10:08in that cause.
10:10And in the cause Nina did not say that.
10:12She said it on a television channel.
10:14If she said it on a television channel,
10:16it is an unknown circumstance
10:18to my knowledge.
10:20I think she said it
10:22with Novaresio in La Nación Más.
10:24Well, but that's why I say
10:26that I always refer
10:28to what I know by heart,
10:30which is the judicial cause.
10:32I understand the judicial cause,
10:34but we saw it all.
10:36That's why Fito had the memory.
10:38I also had it.
10:40In the beginning she had just
10:42left prison.
10:44She had her first 48 hours of freedom
10:46for 13 days.
10:48But it's not that 2000 years have passed.
10:50Very few days have passed.
10:52It doesn't matter how much time has passed.
10:54I mean what is
10:56in the cause.
10:58Nina declared
11:00twice in the cause.
11:02One with the inquiry and the other with the extension.
11:04In both opportunities
11:06I was next to her, elbow to elbow,
11:08sitting 10 centimeters
11:10from her.
11:12And that didn't say it.
11:16I want to consult you, Fito.
11:20Wait, because we have a zoom
11:22that started to complicate.
11:24You are on a mobile.
11:26I want to connect you with this
11:28and ask you, because I understand
11:30that you are going to this side.
11:32Why would that situation be important
11:34if Nina, when that day comes
11:36to take a shift at work,
11:38still does not know the tragedy
11:40that is taking place?
11:44She arrives and starts doing her homework.
11:46She starts making a cake for the lady.
11:48She still has not discovered
11:50that there is a criminal act.
11:52What would be the important issue, Fito?
11:54If she, arriving there, detects
11:56that there is still someone in the house
11:58or there are noises.
12:00Technically, in that case,
12:02if it is the homicide,
12:04does it put Martin del Rio out of suspicion
12:06or does it put him inside?
12:08No, first it takes him out.
12:10But, Bobby, I'm going to tell you this.
12:12And listen well.
12:14The evidence offered
12:16is convincing
12:18that supposedly the walker
12:20is Martin del Rio.
12:22The evidence offered in debate, supposedly.
12:24But, the doubts that the case has,
12:26we have to see if they move the jury.
12:28And I'll tell you what the doubts are.
12:30First, Nina,
12:32on a TV channel, said she heard footsteps.
12:34Second, to go to the garage,
12:36today in the allegations,
12:38they made it clear
12:40that to go to the garage
12:42and find the dead
12:44to Martin del Rio,
12:46Nina called a therapist
12:48or a nurse
12:50and told her,
12:52look if they are in the garage.
12:54So she goes.
12:56But what happens?
12:58To go to the garage,
13:00there was a armored door
13:02and an elevator
13:04and you were going up
13:06and the elevator door was open
13:08so that no one could go up the garage.
13:10So, if you have
13:12footsteps,
13:14the elevator
13:16that was
13:18without the door closed,
13:20the door open to go up the stairs
13:22and the gun,
13:24because here the problem
13:26with all that is that
13:28a command blow is difficult.
13:30Because why is he going to take the gun
13:32to San Diego,
13:34to San Diego's house?
13:36That's the mystery I can't understand.
13:38And also, if it was del Rio,
13:40wait, if it was del Rio,
13:42why did he shoot us if it was Martin del Rio?
13:44He threw the gun
13:46and they couldn't search to see
13:48who had been the gun that killed us.
13:50That is, leave the gun,
13:52he threw it from the river,
13:54in the middle of the river, Bobby,
13:56and they couldn't know what the gun was.
13:58What a mystery this is, because the truth,
14:00I don't get out of the amazement,
14:02I don't get out of the amazement.
14:04It's very interesting, because also,
14:06he is supposedly attributed
14:08to have made the DVR disappear
14:10or to have eliminated the DVR.
14:12So, if we attribute him a conduct,
14:14why not do the same with the other?
14:16If the DVR is discarded
14:18from the cameras, why not
14:20also throw the gun?
14:22It is not proven.
14:24And one more thing,
14:26Bobby, I forgot,
14:28he takes the cell phones of the victims.
14:30So, I ask you,
14:32if you take the DVR,
14:34how are you not going to take the cell phone,
14:36which takes you more time
14:38to unhook a DVR than the cell phone?
14:40In the cell phone are all these chats
14:42that supposedly incriminate him.
14:44If he took,
14:46whoever it is,
14:48he took the DVR,
14:50also the logic that he takes the cell phones
14:52that were in the pocket of the victims
14:54sitting in the car.
14:56In principle, it seems to be forceful,
14:58but the doubts
15:00are abysmal, guys.
15:02Look where we are thinking
15:04that it was a trial that was practically resolved
15:06and not.
15:08And Fito, I want to consult you something.
15:10You saw that in the movies and in the series,
15:12when we face this same scenario
15:14in which we are now,
15:16the jury deliberating,
15:18locked up in a room,
15:20one saying, hey, for me,
15:22apart, you saw what he said,
15:24what can happen there in fiction,
15:26that if there is
15:28consensus, the resolution,
15:30the verdict is fast,
15:32and if a lot of time passes,
15:34is it because someone has some doubtful scenario?
15:38I'm going to give you a statistic
15:40of ten popular trials
15:42by jurors.
15:4690%
15:48took less than two hours
15:50the deliberation,
15:52innocent.
15:54Less than two hours?
15:56Let's go again.
15:58Ninety percent.
16:00Ten, nine,
16:02it took less than two hours.
16:04Because it was also another thing,
16:06that these people are from Monday
16:08at eight in the morning,
16:10listen to witnesses,
16:12yesterday until seven o'clock,
16:14yesterday until seven o'clock,
16:16so today they will have to be
16:18at least until eight o'clock at night.
16:20And that's when
16:22fatigue starts to play.
16:24It tires us.
16:26I want to imagine,
16:28are they in a meeting room
16:30right now, the two jurors?
16:32No, they went to eat
16:34in a room with you.
16:36And they don't talk there?
16:38Or do they have a space
16:40to sit down and say,
16:42for me it is this, for me it is the other,
16:44and debate among themselves?
16:46No, they can't yet.
16:48They can't until they are given
16:50the instructions, Judge Coelho,
16:52they can't.
16:54After they are given the instructions,
16:56absolutely everything,
16:58and they are given a paper,
17:00and where you put, guilty or innocent,
17:02in the United States,
17:04guilty or not guilty.
17:06That's where the debates start.
17:08Very well.
17:10In a step prior to the debate.
17:12We are in a step prior to the debate.
17:14When the lawyers and the judge
17:16discuss
17:18the
17:20instructions they are going to give to the jury.
17:22A debate that can last
17:24long or short, right?
17:26Long or short, I mean.
17:28So we are,
17:30it is imminent then,
17:32the possibility that we already know,
17:34or we have to wait a little longer.
17:36Look, we are sharing, Fito,
17:38again, two images, the one of the walker alone
17:40and the one of the walker
17:42supposedly with his ex-lover or lover.
17:44I want us to compare them.
17:46Because, is it the same man?
17:48We already know that he walks
17:50with the woman
17:52who is blonde,
17:54dyed blonde, I don't know.
17:56It is almost a week before,
17:58and it is the one that, according to the prosecution and the jury,
18:00they presume that it could have been
18:02in ignorance
18:04of his lover, because if not,
18:06she would also be sitting on the bench of the accused.
18:08A prior trial
18:10to see times,
18:12distances, how long does it take him.
18:14Can I say something?
18:16Yes. Bobby,
18:18very important.
18:20When you are going to recognize a person,
18:22you put four similar ones,
18:24that is, three and you,
18:26so that it is recognized
18:28to see who it is.
18:30What they should have done,
18:32I would have been opposed,
18:34is that they should have made four videos
18:36of different people walking like
18:38dressed the same, to tell them,
18:40who is the walker,
18:42who is Martín Darío,
18:44because he has a trap, Pablo,
18:46he has a trap.
18:48I tell you the truth.
18:50Would you like to stand
18:52in front of the witnesses
18:54of a robbery and say,
18:56it was Ponzoni, and you are alone,
18:58and they tell you, this is Ponzoni or not,
19:00and you are the only one there.
19:02Do you know what's wrong with me?
19:04Because there are other topics, Bobby,
19:06I'm going to put you in the video.
19:08Tell us.
19:10That was what happened
19:12in the instruction process.
19:14In instruction,
19:16the witnesses were not asked,
19:18I say because I was there
19:20when the political acts occurred.
19:22In instruction, the witnesses were not asked
19:24if that person was Martín Darío.
19:26They were not told,
19:28look, we want to know
19:30if that person is Martín Darío.
19:32That happened to us.
19:34They said, do you recognize this person?
19:36Without telling them
19:38that there was the presumption
19:40that it was Martín Darío.