To what extent are these statements credible? What benefit do the defendants gain by blaming the death on another person? Is it a common strategy? The answer is quite simple and has to do with our country’s judicial system: “It is necessary to start from the premise that the accuser must prove that that person is guilty. On the other hand, the accused does not have to prove anything,” answers Miguel Capuz, lawyer specializing in criminal law and who was present this week at the Barcelona Court as an observer of the trial.
“It is up to the prosecution to provide evidence that a person, when he signed a document, was aware of everything it entailed. That he knew what was going on. And what the defense will never do is give hints or make things easier to the prosecution,” adds Capuz. Defense lawyers, therefore, approach the trial with the best way to protect the defendants in mind. The law allows defendants to answer all parts, only specific parts, none of them, and even leave some specific questions to be answered. “To avoid testifying against oneself”, argued José Manuel del Amo Sánchez, the president of the court judging the Neymar-DIS case, during the trial.
Neymar asked to advance his statement
It is also common for defense attorneys to ask that defendants be allowed to testify at the end. Although, as the lawyers in this case explain, the court does not always accede to it. The argument is that, in this way, “all the witnesses have been heard and there is time to better prepare the defense”, explains one of the lawyers who is in charge of one of the defenses. The Neymars, however, asked to advance the statement at first. “Legally there is no difference, as long as the court allows it. But, in this case, the media exposure of the player is avoided”, argue from those around him.
Whether it’s before or after, the defenses are clear that it is necessary to avoid kicking. For this reason, it is most common to advise the accused to only answer the defense’s questions. In the case of Neymar, he responded to his lawyer and also to the Prosecutor’s Office. “Until a few years ago, the Supreme Court allowed the questions to be dictated even if the accused did not answer them. In this way, the questions that the prosecution, for example, wanted to ask the accused were formulated. But that ended “, comments Capuz.
Of course, you have to be very careful with the answers. “It’s not the same as just saying you signed «what they told you»then add a comment of the type «I didn’t know this could be a problem»because here it can be implied that maybe you knew something more than you admit,” says Capuz. In the case of a soccer player, such as Neymar or Messi, it can be implied that he does not know the risks fiscal of an operation.
Infanta Cristina said she did not read what she signed
On the other hand, in the case of Infanta Cristina, a person with a high academic background who worked at La Caixa, it is more difficult to believe that she was not aware of the documents she was signing. At this point, then, it is understandable why she said during her trial that she was “signing” without “even reading the documents”, because she had “maximum confidence in her husband”.
In the Neymar-DIS trial, the footballer said he was signing what his father told him, and Neymar’s lawyer made it clear that when the contracts were signed, the player was a minor. In turn, the father said he signed the paperwork following what the managers told him, and did add that he “didn’t know it could pose any legal problems.” Did he stick his paw? No, according to Capuz: “He acted as a firewall to protect the son, who is playing with a disqualification.”
