👉 During the oral trial for the death of Diego Maradona, a shift in the procedural dynamics became evident after the addition of lawyer Luque, who took an active stance to counter evidence and clarify his version of events. Unlike other defendants such as Adorni, Luque was proactive from the outset, arriving with documents and medical records to support his defense.
The debate centered on technical issues regarding criminal co-authorship, implied malice, and medical negligence. It was discussed whether the doctors involved could be held responsible under specific criminal statutes. According to one of the official experts, "if Maradona had chronic heart failure, he could not have died lying down," which was interpreted as a key piece of information for the defense.
The hearings were marked by clashes between defense and plaintiff lawyers. Oneto was asked to face ethical sanctions for alleged disrespect toward the victims. Furthermore, the use of Anglo-Saxon cross-examination as a novel technique in Argentina was debated, defended by some lawyers as a tool to control the quality of information.
👉 Stay tuned to #StartTheAfternoonOnA24
Get informed on #A24 🟥🟥🟥
📲 Subscribe to our channel! → / a24com
🖥 Find more news on our website → www.A24.com
👍 Don't forget to follow us on our social media!
→ Facebook: Facebook: A24com
→ Instagram: Instagram: a24noticias
→ X: Twitter: A24COM
→ TikTok: TikTok: a24noticias
→ Twitch: Twitch: a24noticias
→ WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va5S...
→ Telegram: https://t.me/s/A24noticias
👉 During the oral trial for the death of Diego Maradona, a shift in the procedural dynamics became evident after the addition of lawyer Luque, who took an active stance to counter evidence and clarify his version of events. Unlike other defendants such as Adorni, Luque was proactive from the outset, arriving with documents and medical records to support his defense.
The debate centered on technical issues regarding criminal co-authorship, implied malice, and medical negligence. It was discussed whether the doctors involved could be held responsible under specific criminal statutes. According to one of the official experts, "if Maradona had chronic heart failure, he could not have died lying down," which was interpreted as a key piece of information for the defense.
The hearings were marked by clashes between defense and plaintiff lawyers. Oneto was asked to face ethical sanctions for alleged disrespect toward the victims. Furthermore, the use of Anglo-Saxon cross-examination as a novel technique in Argentina was debated, defended by some lawyers as a tool to control the quality of information.
👉 Stay tuned to #StartTheAfternoonOnA24
Get informed on #A24 🟥🟥🟥
📲 Subscribe to our channel! → / a24com
🖥 Find more news on our website → www.A24.com
👍 Don't forget to follow us on our social media!
→ Facebook: Facebook: A24com
→ Instagram: Instagram: a24noticias
→ X: Twitter: A24COM
→ TikTok: TikTok: a24noticias
→ Twitch: Twitch: a24noticias
→ WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va5S...
→ Telegram: https://t.me/s/A24noticias
Además, es absurdo y jurídicamente insostenible trasladar a la víctima procesal un peso que no le corresponde. La víctima no es sujeto pasivo de imputación, no está siendo procesada, no enfrenta una posible condena ni carga con el estándar probatorio. La víctima ejerce derechos: a ser oída, a participar, a aportar información, a recibir protección; pero no es ella quien debe responder frente al poder punitivo del Estado.
Pretender equiparar la participación de la víctima con la del imputado es una distorsión conceptual grave. El imputado es quien enfrenta: La presunción de inocencia, la carga probatoria del Estado, la posibilidad real de una condena, la obligación de contradecir pruebas y la presión del contradictorio pleno. La víctima no está en esa posición ni jurídica ni constitucionalmente. Nunca pueden compararse ambos roles porque no son equivalentes ni funcional ni teleológicamente.
Equipararlos es una pendejada procesal: Es confundir la naturaleza del proceso penal, es ignorar la asimetría estructural entre quien acusa y quien es acusado, y es desconocer que el sistema está diseñado para limitar el poder del Estado frente al individuo imputado, no para someter a la víctima a un escrutinio que no le corresponde.