Two Constitutional Court magistrates have dissented from the acquittal of Miguel López for the 2016 murder of his mother-in-law. In particular votes, they argue the decision sends a 'perturbing message' and deprives prosecutors of a fair trial. The case has gone through multiple judicial levels after an initial verdict was destroyed.
The Constitutional Court recently upheld the acquittal of Miguel López, son-in-law of Maricarmen Martínez—the widow of the former president of the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM)—for the fatal shooting of her in the family business in 2016, known as the 'Sala case.' However, two Sala magistrates issued dissenting particular votes, accessible in the ruling and revealed by EL MUNDO, sharply criticizing the majority decision.
The dissenting judges argue that the ruling 'sends a perturbing message' by depriving the accusations—the particular one exercised by the victim's only son, Vicente Sala Martínez, and the Public Prosecutor's Office—'of the opportunity for a fair or equitable trial.' They contend that no 'inactivity or passivity' can be attributed to the accusations, as the jury trial's presiding magistrate took a prior position that made 'any allegation inviable' for the parties.
The case dates back to a trial between October and November 2019, where an initial guilty verdict was destroyed by the presiding magistrate, deeming it insufficiently motivated. The victim's son claimed defenselessness due to this destruction, a position supported by the Supreme Court but rejected last week by the Constitutional Court, which noted that López's lawyer, Francisco Ruiz Marco, could have appealed at the time.
The dissenters conclude that 'the only way to restore the equity of the process fractured by the presiding magistrate's certain lack of skill and prudence is to retroact the process for it to proceed before a new jury.' They emphasize that this addresses a 'violation of an essential guarantee' for the accusations, crucial for due process.