Bayamon – The evidence suppression hearing in the criminal case against Luis Gonzalez Martinezwhere it is requested that the confession that he allegedly made in relation to the murder of the businesswoman Hilda Padilla Romero, on Avenida Los Filtros, in Guaynabo, not be admitted, was scheduled for mid-November, due to arguments presented by the Prosecutor’s Office.
In room 602, before Judge Rafael Villafane Riera, of the Court of First Instance of Bayamon, a status hearing of the case was held this morning, where it was determined, based on the trial that is in progress against Keishla Perez Bigio and William Aviles Gonzalez, two other defendants of the crime, that the judicial process will continue on November 15 and 17.
During the status hearing, the defendant, who now sports a shaved head and beard, was present. Handcuffed and handcuffed, Gonzalez Martinez – who was arrested by state authorities on November 26, 2019, in relation to these events – entered the courtroom, after 9:00 am, wearing a blue confinement uniform.
“Luis Gonzalez Martinez, is that you?” the judge asked him.
In the middle of the court jobsprosecutor Carmen Ortiz Rodriguez explained to the judge that the prosecutors in the case against Gonzalez Martinez are the same ones assigned to the trial against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez. In both cases, the Public Ministry is represented by Ortiz Rodriguez, Ivan Rivera Labrador and Gracielys Vega Bermudez.
Trial against Perez Bigio in “critical stage”
The trial against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez has been delayed due to a controversy over the admissibility of evidence in relation to the extraction of one of the cell phones that allegedly belonged to Gonzalez Martinez. From that team, the Prosecutor’s Office seeks to use some photographs and audios, Ortiz Rodriguez explained to The new day.
However, the defense in the case made a statement regarding the relevance of that evidence that they want to use as part of the trial. Regarding this matter, a hearing will be held this Thursday, where a preliminary determination will be made as to whether or not the evidence is used as part of the trial, the prosecutor mentioned.
“We are in a critical stage of the trial (against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez),” added Ortiz Rodriguez, who outlined that the case is “voluminous and complex.” “We are in the final stage of the case and we are dealing with a complex test of digital evidence and a (Rule) 109 for the admissibility of critical evidence in the case,” he said.
In the case of the trial against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez, as specified, “three or four witnesses” are pending to testify. When asked by this media about whether they will be putting Padilla Romero’s eldest daughter on the witness stand, he responded: “That is a determination that we are going to make depending on how the test goes.”
However, this entire situation in the trial against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez has, in turn, disrupted the case against Gonzalez Martinez, where new dates had to be set for the continuation of the evidence suppression hearing.
“They (the defense) are requesting the suppression of the confession made by Luis Gonzalez Martinez (who was allegedly hired by Keishla… That will be seen on those days (November 15 and 17) because “(Gonzalez Martinez) did not comply with his part of the agreement and the Public Ministry is going to prosecute him, just as it is going to prosecute the other two,” said.
“He (Gonzalez Martinez) no longer has any agreement because he did not cooperate in the trial,” Ortiz Rodriguez asserted, in reference to the fact that, on April 17, Gonzalez Martinez did not testify in the trial against Perez Bigio and Aviles Gonzalez.
The basis of the defense
Although in the status view the licentiate Yuseph Lambay, legal representative of Gonzalez Martinez, was not present in the room and connected remotely, The new day He contacted the lawyer, who explained the basis of the defense for requesting the suppression of the confession that his client made to the Police.
“We are requesting the suppression of the confession. We have in our position several readings of legal warnings where he mentioned, on several occasions, that he did not want to testify and, right off the bat, suspiciously, in a surprising way, a confession of the facts appeared,” mentioned Lambay, to questions from this medium.
For these purposes, he stated that the statements that the Police took from his client, at that time, are one that “is not reliable and is totally illegal.” He added that, “there is documentary evidence that, on several occasions, my client was released from prison, without any reason, so that he could testify about the facts of the Hilda Padilla Romero case.”
He highlighted that the Prosecutor’s Office states that his client voluntarily spoke about the events, but omits that, on several occasions, they summoned his client and he decided not to testify. “If he decides not to testify, the State has a legal impediment to continue interviewing him and that is the basis of our motion (for suppression),” said.
“When he says that he is not going to testify, the Police leave him in a cell for several hours and we are saying that the State, the Police, put psychological pressure on my client to change his opinion regarding the statement. “This strategy used by the State is illegal,” Lamboy stressed, to questions from this medium.
Along these lines, the lawyer specified that the motion to suppress evidence questions his client’s voluntariness in renouncing his right to testify. He added that the pressure exerted by the State for his client to testify about the facts is what makes the statement taken illegal.
“Another fact is that, at the time of reading the legal warnings to my client, he had legal representation in another case, which was not this server, but the times they summoned him to pressure him again, to testify in this case , and they read him the legal warnings, they do it without summoning his lawyer of record,” Lamboy concluded.