The leader and founder of the AUC in Michoacan is accused of a double murder; It was stated until 13 August by the State Prosecutor's office
The fourth criminal judge this Wednesday night detention against the leader and founder of the Michoacán, Hipólito Mora, self-defence groups to consider that there are sufficient elements that prove his guilt in a double homicide.
The leader of the AUC was arrested March 11 to find evidence of the participation in the murder of Rafael Sánchez Moreno and Luis José Torres Castañeda, who were found burned Saturday, March 8.
The murderers of Sánchez Moreno, identified also as El Pollo, and Torres Castañeda, were committed by members of the self-defense group led Mora.
According to investigations, two persons from the Group of Mora are identified as the alleged killers of the materials, but they managed to escape.
Also versions provided by the authorities, the chicken was part of the Group of the Knights Templar, a group which defected to integrate to the self-defense of the Ruana, so it collaborated in the identification of addresses of Templar.
@nacho. There is no quick and easy summary of Mexican criminal law. In the past, before a new criminal code was adopted, all trials were decided on written statements, not oral testimony. The judge looked at the reports from the investigators, (from the prosecutors office), witness statements (if he deemed them credible), and rendered a verdict. It has been described as the judge really didn't decide guilt or innocence, he just passed sentence. It was presumed you were guilty or you wouldn't be in jail.
Reforms passed in 2008 required all the states to implement oral trials where witnesses could cross examined, and required that they be transparent (open to the press and public). The judge, under both the new and old system did not have to disclose what evidence he based his decision on, but under the new system requiring that trials be open and transparent, supposedly the press and public would see the same evidence that the judge saw.
Under the 2008 reforms the states had until 2013 to implement the changes, but that deadline has been extended until 2016 since only a few states Mexico City had fully implemented them by the original deadline.
So in a nutshell, the judicial system is still in a deplorable state.
If you want to understand it better, I would recommend reading the comments from our most knowledgeable BB contributor about Mexico's judicial system - "jlopez". Just click on the "people" at the top of the page and in the search box type in "jlopez". It will go to his profile and list all the comments and stories he has posted. Most of them deal with the judicial system and his comments are usually better than most of the articles you will find.
Words are powerful weapons, be careful how you use them.
Nacho: I'm glad to know from your comment that you are trying to help immigrant with their legal problems. During my career as a lawyer, I acquired quite a few pro bono clients from Mexico and Central America who were trying to defend themselves in the U.S. Aside from their unfamiliarity with the language, there are very few U.S. lawyers fluent enough in Spanish and familiar enough with the Mexican legal system to be able to explain to Mexican defendants their rights, the law and their best options in terms that they could understand.
A short story, then I'll get out. I was an administrative law judge once in a DWI case. The Mexican defendant had a lawyer who advertised himself as fluent in Spanish. I instructed the lawyer to explain to his client his legal rights, the purpose for the hearing, the potential consequences and the way in which the court (me) would handle the proceedings and take evidence on the issues.
The lawyer tried valiantly to explain the issues to his client, who was looking completely befuddled, totally puzzled. Finally, I took pity on them --on the lawyer for his incompetence and on the client because he needed to understand his rights-- and asked for permission to explain things to the defendant. The lawyer was glad to admit defeat, and I explained what was happening to the defendant.
Poor guy. All he kept exclaiming was "Oh!" and "Now I understand!" and "So that's what it is!" I asked his lawyer to translate the testimony from the witnesses and took the opportunity to correct his translation. Otherwise it would have been improper for me, as the judge, to translate. It was slow, but I think he got a fair trial. I don't actually remember how I ruled.
But the point of my story is that Latin American immigrants come from a culture with judicial systems that are based on entirely different legal concepts and philosophies, not to mention court procedures. Not only are they unfamiliar with the language, not to mention the legalese, but the concepts themselves may leave them puzzled. In addition, they do not fully comprehend the role of police officers in the U.S. judicial system. Police officers in Mexico, for instance, are viewed as simply another enemy, one with greater potential to inflict harm than a non-government criminal. Defendants there do not see judges as impartial triers of fact, but as simply another oppressor.
I am glad to hear that you are performing such a valuable service.