2023-05-09 03:15:00
In an unexpected opening statement, the defender of Ramiro Gutiérrez, accused of the murder of Facundo Castillo in Cipolletti, threw all the cards on the table. He made a detailed description of the facts, according to his version, and managed to capture the attention not only of the popular jury but also of the public that followed the start of the trial.
With a great oratory capacity and abundant linguistic resources, Carlos Vila Llanos, a former judge dismissed in Río Negro, managed to get the interlocutors in the courtroom to imagine everything that supposedly happened. Almost like a movie script. He showed it to the accused cornered by circumstances, scared and with a “narrow-mindedness” that did not allow him to decide clearly. It was in this context that the driver reversed and ran over Facundo Castillo.
In the previous one, they had alleged the chief prosecutor Santiago Márquez Gauna who this time did not display his usual discursive performance and outlined a synthetic but direct allegation: perhaps his strategy is to save his best cards for the closing speeches.
The plaintiff Juan Coto used a modern digital presentation. In any case, Vila invoked his motor disability and apologized for not being able to keep up with his litigants, who exposed standing up and moved around the room. From the defense bench, Vila took the microphone and surprised locals and strangers. His co-defendant Martín Segovia focused directly on the popular jury that must define the responsibility of the accused: “There is no justice without truth,” he reiterated on several occasions.
Intent or not intent
Intent or not intent, that is the question. The litigation skills and the legal arguments of the parties are limited to a single purpose: to define whether Ramiro Gutiérrez wanted (or not) to kill Facundo Castillo on December 19, 2021 in Cipolletti. The start of the expected trial was marked by the surprise presence of Fernando Burlando and the exclusion of a relative of Gutiérrez for photographing the jury.
But the central – and important – part of the debate was at the beginning with the arguments of the parties. The accusers led by Márquez Gauna and Coto focused the opening argument on Gutiérrez’s intention to kill him, aboard his BMW truck.to a group of people among whom was the young Facundo Castillo.
In return, the defenders argued that it was an accident and supported their theory with a series of incidents that occurred in the early morning of December 19 as they left a party at Finca La Nonnina. Beyond the adjectives and qualifications that were introduced in the debate, the popular jury that will define the criminal responsibility of the accused he must use the testimonial and scientific evidence that yesterday began to parade through room 6 of Cipolletti’s Judiciary.
Marquez Gauna and especially Coto described Gutiérrez as an arrogant person, who does not respect the law and who, in an act of anger, used his truck to run over a group of people with the intent to kill. Both focused on that signifier that will be key: the intention, that is to say in legal terms the fraud.
The accusers assured that with the evidence the jury will be able to infer that this was the end, run over and kill. Vila Llanos, a former judge dismissed from the province, went to the other extreme and not only spoke of an accident but also described the defendant as a victim in the events in which it occurred Facundo’s death.
It was the most extensive exposition of the debate and with many details, it even generated a crossroads with the technical judge Guillermo Merlo for the use of time. In prior agreement there were 7 minutes of oratory and the lawyer expanded for more than 25. In his story he told a diametrically different version of the accusing theory. Not only around the intention, but also the modality, a central point in this oral and public trial. Vila said that Gutiérrez ran over with the back of his truck a Castillo in an attempt to despair before an attack was suffering.
Instead, the prosecution assured that the crash was frontal. The scientific expertise of the vehicle and the scene of the event will be key to defining this issue, but there is an important piece of information and that is that the accused fled the scene following the accident and the vehicle was hijacked. Just 30 hours later.
After the fight, Ramiro got into his truck, accelerated on the contrary to the one that had been circulating and when he reached Route 22 he made a “U” turn, focused his truck directly on the group of people with whom he had been fighting and accelerated directly with the clear intent to kill them.”
James Marquez Gauna, chief prosecutor
The complainant announced that in that period of time there was manipulation of the vehicle. He also said that Gutiérrez hid witnesses while he was on the run and made himself available to justice regarding 40 hours later.
One of the witnesses yesterday was Juan Rodríguez, head of the Criminalistics Cabinet. He said, among other things, that following the delivery of the truck, a series of photographs were taken that he showed at the trial and explained that various parts of the truck had breaks and dents. However, He assured that it is not possible to specify or estimate when they occurred. For the accusers, these facts support the theory regarding the conduct of the accused, far from the innocence with which the defenders describe him.
There are some details of the fact that cannot be disputed: that the defendant with his truck ran over and killed Facundo and that there was a previous fight, but the rest is part of the controversy that gave rise to the trial.
“After the fight, Ramiro got into his truck, accelerated the opposite of the one he was driving and when he got to Route 22 he made a U-turn.” He focused his truck directly on the group of people he had been fighting with and accelerated directly with the clear intention of killing them.”said prosecutor Márquez Gauna.
He recounted that the incident occurred at the exit of the party when the defendant began to circulate in the wrong direction on Salto street on the way to Route 22 to avoid the long line of cars that were going in the same direction. On that journey there was an incident and that sparked a brawl. They got out of the truck and there was an intense fight, everyone agreed that Facundo only intervened to separate. He added that when Gutierrez sped into the group of people, the victim had his back turned.
“The BMW X1 that Gutiérrez was driving ran over Facundo, who had his back turned, and ran over him.” In his turn, the complainant added that he dragged him 14 meters. “If you commit an accident, what do you do? He stays in place. But Gutiérrez’s decision was to back down and circulate 14 meters with Facundo’s body under his vehicle. Then he decided to run away. We are going to show you that Gutiérrez erased evidence, he hid two witnesses. Worst of all, the vehicle was tampered with following the fact,” said Juan Manuel Coto.
In his turn, Vila Llanos narrated a totally different story. He said that Gutiérrez was beaten and that he was afraid. He added that the young man returned from the traffic light on Route 22 and Salto Street to look for a friend who had been left homeless and that at that moment he was rebuked by many young people who belonged to a soccer club. In that context, he backed down and ran over and killed the young man.
“They go and break his windshield, they hang from the door to open it. Ramiro Gutiérrez is terrified, in a panic, in a situation of insurmountable fear. Not only what was happening to him at that moment, but remember that before Francisco García was kicked in the head on the floor and before that they had fractured his jaw”, outlined the defender in an effusive speech. He said that’s why he fled backwards and accidentally ran over Facundo. The intense debate forced the suspension of the testimonies of several eyewitnesses who will be heard today from 8:30.
To comment on this note you must have your digital access.
Subscribe to add your opinion!
Subscribe
1683602987
#defense #defendant #panicked #accidentally #ran
