0102001625JP111012253 copia defensa

Reanudación de la Audiencia

Inicio de la audiencia

• La audiencia se reanuda a las 16:47, después de un receso decretado. Se confirma que el último testigo está presente y conectado con el órgano jurisdiccional.

• Se solicita al servidor público que se identifique en pantalla para proceder con su individualización.

Identificación del Testigo

• El licenciado judicial pide al auxiliar que muestre la parte posterior de su identificación. Se asegura que el testigo está solo en la sala sin documentos adicionales.

• La juez menciona que ya se han tomado los datos generales del testigo, quien se identifica como perito de la dirección de Luis David.

Obligaciones del Testigo

• El testigo es advertido sobre su obligación de decir la verdad y no ocultar información relevante, advirtiendo sobre las consecuencias legales por falsedad ante la autoridad (3 a 8 años de prisión).

• Se le pregunta si protesta conducir con verdad, a lo cual responde afirmativamente. También se le instruye sobre cómo manejar objeciones durante el interrogatorio.

Interrogatorio del Perito

Información General del Perito

• La fiscalía inicia su interrogatorio preguntando al perito sobre su lugar de trabajo: Fiscalía General del Estado de Veracruz, específicamente en la subdelegación judicial en Miratura.

• El perito lleva aproximadamente 4 años y 11 meses trabajando en esta dependencia y se identifica como criminalista con cédula profesional número 11669492.

Funciones y Experiencia

• Las principales funciones del perito incluyen realizar diligencias fotográficas, levantamiento de indicios e identificación de autoridades dentro del área criminalística.

• En relación al caso específico (juicio número 700 92 24), el perito fue solicitado para realizar una inspección ocular en un domicilio ubicado cerca de una escuela secundaria técnica debido a un incidente ocurrido allí.

Procedimiento Criminalístico

• El perito explica que su función es ubicar exactamente el lugar donde ocurrió un hecho delictivo, ya sea en espacios cerrados o abiertos, indicando que realizó una inspección el 8 de junio del año 2024.

• Al ser cuestionado sobre por qué solo pudo trabajar en las afueras de la escuela secundaria técnica, menciona que no le otorgaron acceso al interior porque necesitaba autorización formal por parte del director encargado, quien no estaba presente ese día.

Herramientas Utilizadas

• Para llevar a cabo sus dictámenes, utiliza herramientas básicas como psicográfica y bolígrafo entre otros elementos necesarios para realizar su trabajo adecuadamente.

Why Are These Instruments Necessary for Your Report?

Importance of Instruments in Criminalistics

• The instruments are deemed essential for conducting the report as they facilitate the completion of the work.

• A camera is highlighted as a crucial tool for documenting images related to personal health issues, emphasizing its role in capturing evidence.

Documentation and Evidence Collection

• The witness confirms maintaining records from field criminalistics, including photographs that illustrate the perimetral delimitation of a school.

• The presence of specific features such as a green steel gate with logos indicates that the location is indeed a school.

Identifying Characteristics of the School

Observations on Location

• The characteristics observed include closed spaces and various colored buildings, confirming it as an educational institution due to visible students and staff.

Locating the Scene

• The location was identified based on street names, indicating it is situated in an elevated area with clear boundaries.

Interrogation Process and Testimony

Clarification on Identity

• During questioning, there’s an emphasis on addressing the witness by their first name, establishing rapport.

Reference to Official Documents

• Questions arise regarding an official document (79224), dated June 6, 2024, which served as a basis for inspection.

Details About Security Measures

Perimeter Security Features

• A perimeter wall is mentioned to prevent unauthorized access; only employees or authorized personnel can enter through designated points.

Document Recognition and Time Stamps

Document Verification Process

• The witness acknowledges recording when documents were received but struggles to recall specific times without reference materials.

Importance of Accurate Record Keeping

• Emphasis is placed on recognizing documents by format and content during legal proceedings.

Final Remarks and Conclusion of Testimony

Closing Statements

• After verifying details about documents presented during testimony, no further questions are posed by other parties involved in the case.

Release from Testimony

• The expert concludes their testimony and is released from duty after expressing gratitude towards judicial personnel.

Testimony Order and Health Issues in Court

Discussion on Testimony Sequence

• The defense indicated that they would present witnesses José René Reyes Hernández, Guadalupe Yajaira Patiño Vázquez, and Iraí Echeverría Cortés in a specific order, starting with Iraí.

• The court referenced Article 395 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the order of testimonies, confirming the defense's proposed sequence.

Witness Presence and Medical Justification

• The presence of witnesses was confirmed: José René and Guadalupe Yajaira were present; however, Iraí Echeverría was absent due to medical reasons.

• A medical certificate was presented indicating that Iraí had bacterial tonsillitis and had received treatment at a local health institution.

Request for Procedural Equality

• The defense argued for procedural equality under Articles 10 and 11 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting that Iraí be allowed to provide her testimony later due to her health condition.

• The prosecution did not oppose changing the order of testimonies but raised concerns about justifying Iraí's absence based on her medical note.

Prosecution's Counterarguments

• The prosecution expressed no objection to altering the testimony order but contested the validity of Iraí’s medical justification for her absence from court.

• They highlighted inconsistencies in the defense's claims about Iraí’s health status, suggesting she had been declared fit by her attorney previously.

Examination of Medical Documentation

• Legal counsel noted that the medical documentation provided by the defense lacked necessary details such as certification or clear incapacity statements for attending court.

• It was pointed out that despite being treated for inflammation, the prognosis stated she was in "excellent condition," implying no impediment to attending court proceedings.

Transcript Summary Legal Proceedings and Health Considerations

Discussion on Testimony and Health Implications

• The defense argues against the testimony of Iraí Echeverr Cotés, claiming it is detrimental to their case. They express adherence to the positions taken by both the prosecution and legal advisor.

• Acknowledging the importance of health, a speaker emphasizes that freedom and health are paramount rights protected by the Constitution and international treaties. They request permission for a teleconference for further proceedings.

• The speaker indicates that if they receive necessary information from Licenciada Iraí, they will not withdraw from pursuing testimonies from Yajaira and René, stressing respect for judicial decisions.

Judicial Considerations on Absence Due to Health

• The judge affirms that Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees health rights. A medical note indicating bacterial tonsillitis is discussed as justification for absence from court.

• It is established that the accused's inability to attend was due to a legitimate health issue confirmed by medical documentation, which must be respected in judicial processes.

Procedural Adjustments and Future Hearings

• The judge considers arguments presented by both parties regarding witness attendance and allows changes in witness order without objections raised.

• In response to a request for a teleconference with Huauchinango's court, the judge requires specific details about where witnesses are located to facilitate communication effectively.

• If proper arrangements aren't made for remote testimony, witnesses must appear in person at court on December 13th at noon as per procedural requirements outlined in national codes.

Notification of Changes in Hearing Dates

• The judge sets December 14th at noon as the new date for hearings after acknowledging scheduling conflicts due to medical appointments affecting representation.

• An attorney informs that they cannot attend on December 13th due to a medical appointment but will assess their notes before confirming participation on December 14th.

This structured summary captures key discussions surrounding legal procedures influenced by health considerations within this transcript segment.

Hearing Proceedings and Requests for Cautionary Measures

Overview of the Hearing

• The defense is required to present their evidence; failure to do so will result in dismissal as per Articles 90 and 91 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

• The hearing is adjourned, wishing everyone a good day. However, the social representation has another request regarding Salvador Palaz Rodríguez's precautionary measure.

Request for Review of Precautionary Measure

• The social representation requests a review of Salvador Palaz Rodríguez's precautionary measure, currently set as preventive detention in a local reintegration center.

• This precautionary measure expires on December 11, 2025. Given that the trial has been postponed, they argue it’s pertinent to also postpone this measure.

Justification for Postponement

• The request emphasizes that not all testimonies have been presented yet, which aligns with Article 161 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

• They seek an additional month for the precautionary measure to ensure Salvador continues attending hearings until the oral trial concludes.

Support from Other Parties

• The prosecutor supports the request for postponement, emphasizing that more evidence needs to be presented before finalizing decisions on preventive measures.

• An advisor reiterates support for extending preventive detention by one month due to pending testimonies and ensuring continued attendance at hearings.

Defense's Counterarguments

• The defense argues against automatic extensions of preventive measures without proper justification or proportionality tests being conducted by the Public Ministry.

• They highlight that while preventive detention can be reviewed at any time, it must meet specific legal standards and cannot simply be extended based on timing alone.

Legal Framework and Precedents

• Emphasis is placed on adhering to legal principles such as proportionality when considering precautionary measures; these are exceptions rather than rules.

• Reference is made to various articles within the National Code concerning due process and justifications needed for maintaining preventive detention.

Supreme Court Rulings

• Mentioned precedents from Mexico’s Supreme Court regarding preventive detention emphasize its exceptional nature and necessity for clear justification.

• Cited cases illustrate how proportionality must guide decisions about continuing or lifting precautionary measures in criminal proceedings.

Judicial Proceedings and Preventive Measures

Arguments for Preventive Detention

• The defense argues that the preventive detention is unjustified, as it fails to protect the victim or witnesses and does not prevent obstruction of the process.

• The judge previously indicated that if the defendant is cited, they would no longer be under their jurisdiction due to other ongoing processes.

• Emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the defense contends that if the defendant is not convicted, their freedom should only be restricted in relation to other cases.

Legal Justifications and Proportionality

• The prosecution has not clearly justified why less restrictive measures are inadequate; proportionality has not been adequately addressed.

• Citing national jurisprudence, it is noted that preventive detention must be justified on a case-by-case basis and pass a proportionality test.

• The Supreme Court mandates that preventive measures cannot be applied automatically but require specific justification based on individual circumstances.

Alternative Measures Proposed by Defense

• The defense suggests alternatives such as non-contact orders or financial guarantees instead of continued preventive detention.

• They argue for cessation of current measures requested by the prosecution, advocating for more democratic legal practices in Mexico.

Prosecution's Response

• The prosecution criticizes the defense's deep analysis as unnecessary and highlights strategic delays in presenting evidence to benefit their client.

• It points out that conditions have remained unchanged since previous reviews of preventive measures were conducted.

Contextual Considerations

• Acknowledging that this case involves aggravated pedophilia, which falls under serious offenses outlined in Mexican law justifies continued preventive detention.

• The prosecution maintains that current measures are appropriate to ensure judicial proceedings continue without infringing on rights unduly.

• They assert that requesting an additional month for preventive detention aligns with ensuring a fair trial process leading up to its conclusion scheduled for December 2025.

Legal Proceedings and Preventive Detention

Context of the Case

• The legal representative emphasizes the necessity to conclude all evidentiary material due to the serious nature of the charges against the accused, justifying continued preventive detention.

• A request is made for an additional month of preventive detention to finalize the trial phase, asserting that this does not harm any party involved.

Concerns Regarding Minor's Safety

• The discussion shifts to concerns about a minor's safety, highlighting that if released, there may be repercussions affecting their schooling and overall well-being.

• The defense acknowledges these concerns but insists on addressing them within legal parameters.

Arguments Against Preventive Detention

• The defense argues against the prosecution's call for automatic preventive detention, stating that freedom is a fundamental right regardless of procedural stages.

• It is noted that delays in proceedings have often been caused by the prosecution’s failure to present witnesses rather than by the defense.

Legal Justifications and Rights

• The defense stresses that if conditions remain unchanged after three months, immediate release should occur as per legal standards.

• Citing constitutional rights and international treaties, it is argued that preventive detention must be justified with substantial evidence rather than mere claims of urgency.

Judicial Considerations

• The judge reflects on previous court rulings regarding preventive measures and emphasizes that rights cannot be compromised based on anticipated outcomes or timelines.

• There’s a reiteration of constitutional guarantees concerning personal liberty, emphasizing its importance irrespective of case progress.

Conclusion of Debate

• The defense requests consideration for alternative precautionary measures from existing legal frameworks instead of extending preventive detention without sufficient justification.

• As discussions close, both parties prepare for judicial resolution based on established laws governing such cases.

This structured summary captures key arguments and insights from the transcript while providing timestamps for easy reference.

Legal Considerations in Juvenile Cases

Importance of Protecting Minors' Interests

• The prosecution's argument lacks adherence to mandatory legal parameters, especially crucial when dealing with a minor victim.

• The court is obligated to prioritize the best interests of the child and assess compliance with relevant legal aspects.

Evaluating Emotional and Physical Safety

• Concerns were raised about the potential impact on the victim's desire to attend school if the defendant's precautionary measures are altered.

• The court must ensure not only physical safety but also emotional stability for the victim throughout the judicial process.

Judicial Assessment of Precautionary Measures

• The judge notes that there are still witnesses from the defense to be heard, necessitating the defendant's presence in court.

• Proposed precautionary measures by the defense, such as periodic reporting and financial guarantees, may not sufficiently mitigate risks identified by the victim.

Limitations of Proposed Defense Measures

• Financial restrictions or property seizures do not address emotional risks faced by the victim regarding school attendance.

• Other proposed measures like travel bans or institutional supervision fail to alleviate concerns about emotional well-being.

Conclusion on Cautionary Measures Extension

• Immediate separation from residence is deemed unnecessary since both parties do not share a home; temporary suspension from duties is also considered non-operable at this time.

• The court decides to extend cautionary measures for one month, emphasizing ongoing communication with penitentiary authorities regarding procedural updates.

Legal Proceedings and Cautionary Measures

Considerations for Cautionary Measures

• The court emphasizes the need for clarity regarding what constitutes a cautionary measure, noting that neither party (the prosecution nor legal counsel) has adequately established this in the current case.

• The jurisdictional body indicates that if the current attitude persists, it will require the offended party to appoint a different legal advisor, either a private one of their choice or a public legal advisor if they fail to do so.

• This decision underscores the importance of equal treatment within judicial proceedings, ensuring that all parties are represented fairly and effectively.

• The court's stance reflects an intention to maintain procedural integrity by addressing potential deficiencies in representation during criminal trials.

• The implications of these measures highlight the court's proactive approach in safeguarding the rights of individuals involved in legal disputes.