Juan Carlos Peinado slowly rose from his chair and quickly drew his gun. He was on the verge of blowing his own head off. He had not been very pleased when Begoña Gómez spent so little time in his courtroom on Friday, because she had not bothered to notify him of one of the complaints. The trick of proposing that she testify anyway after a quick reading of the content in the hallway had failed. Now she was not going to get away. On the occasion of the videoconference statement of the businessman Carlos Barrabés as a witness, he wanted to force her to appear in court, risking being arrested if she did not show up. Let’s see who could deny him the headlines after that reckless step.
Barrabés’ serious health condition had led him to be called to testify as “pre-constituted evidence” so that the recording could be used in the trial without his future presence. But what was the reason for the threat to Gómez? “The absence of the duly summoned person under investigation will not prevent the practice of pre-constituted evidence, although his legal defence, in any case, must be present,” he says. Article 449 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. Such presence is necessary to ensure the defendant’s right to a defence, but it is not even essential for the questioning to proceed. If the defendant decides not to appear, the judge may call on a court-appointed lawyer.
Add Comment