After four days of being there He was dismissed from his position as judge of the Oral Criminal Court No. 2 of San IsidroJulieta McIntash obtained relief from the courts: the arrest request submitted by Dalma and Janina Maradona was rejected. The former judge is charged with a series of crimes for her remarkable participation in a documentary that was intended to chronicle the details of the trial as she tried to uncover whether there were criminal responsibilities in the death of the international football star, a debate that was eventually declared invalid.
Although it was known in the last hours, the decision had been made before San Isidro Guarantees Judge Esteban Rossignoli Last Saturday.
In the decision he had access to NationRossignoli prohibited McIntasch “from maintaining any kind of contact with witnesses (who have testified in the case), by any means, including all direct, indirect or mediated communications, as well as telephone communications, emails, messaging applications, social networks, publications, comments or references that may reach them directly or indirectly, except when this is expressly permitted or necessary for the development of the judicial process itself, while maintaining the validity of this measure throughout the entire process of this process.”
Dalma and Janina Maradona, two of the daughters of the late international soccer star, submitted the arrest request last Thursday, after a 48-hour trial at the expense of the jury that McIntash (48 years old) underwent, which decided to dismiss her and strip her of her eligibility to hold positions in justice.
“The accused has demonstrated an unmistakable pattern of behaviour, repeated over time and evidenced in various sections of the investigation and jury prosecution process, demonstrating direct intimidation of key witnesses.. While our rituals demand an orderly investigation that respects due process, McIntash’s behavior goes in the opposite direction.“, the arrest request stated Lawyers Fernando Borlando and Fabian AmendolaAnd the representatives of Dalma and Janina Maradona.
For Borlando and Amendola, “the development of the investigation revealed unambiguous behavior to harass witnesses, direct acts of intimidation, attempted tampering with the testimony report and repeated, current, and serious obstructing behaviors, posing the foreseeable procedural risks” of fleeing and obstructing the investigation.
When justifying the decision to reject the arrest request submitted by Borlando and Amendola, the judge explained that the arrest request “unacceptable” Because “the persons playing the role of aggrieved individuals (in this case D’Alma and Gianina Maradona) are not authorized to order said coercive measure; in fact, Article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly indicates that said coercive measure may be ordered ‘except at the request of the intervening public prosecutor’ (public prosecutors José Amalo, Cecilia Scheib and Carolina Asprilla are intervening in the case).”