Judge sends Begoña Gómez case to trial despite Hazte Oír's flawed indictment

An error in the filing of the indictment by Hazte Oír, which failed to meet the requirements of Spain's Jury Court Act, could render it ineffective and lead to the dismissal of the case against Begoña Gómez.

The case involving **Begoña Gómez** is at a delicate point, with the possibility that a formal error in the indictment filed by the organization **Hazte Oír** could lead to the case being dismissed. The key lies in the particularities of jury trials, where the law imposes very specific requirements for the final indictment.

## An indictment that fails to comply with jury law

The law governing jury trials is strict about how the indictment must be filed. One of the fundamental requirements is the precise specification of the facts attributed to the accused. The document filed by **Hazte Oír** has been singled out for lacking this precision, making it difficult to clearly define the charges. This is crucial, because in a jury trial, the jury must rule on specific facts presented to it as proven or not proven.

In addition to the lack of specificity, the **Hazte Oír** indictment made another serious error: including prior judicial assessments. The law explicitly prohibits these documents from containing references to rulings by the investigating judge or other judicial bodies. The aim is to avoid any kind of influence or conditioning of the citizens who will serve on the jury, who must base their verdict solely on the evidence presented during the trial.

## The judge at a crossroads

Judge **Manuel García-Castellano y Ríos** (known as **Peinado**) faces a complex decision. The defense of **Begoña Gómez**, represented by lawyer **Jaime Campaner**, has pointed out these formal deficiencies to the judge. The deadline for issuing the order to open trial proceedings has already passed, and the judge retires at the end of this month, adding pressure to the situation.

Faced with this scenario, Judge **García-Castellano y Ríos** has several options. He could declare the **Hazte Oír** indictment ineffective, since it is the only private prosecution still requesting a trial at this stage. In that case, and given the Public Prosecutor's request for dismissal, he could be forced to shelve the case. Another possibility would be to validate the indictment as it stands, accepting the risk that the Madrid Provincial Court could later annul the entire proceedings for abusa the right to a trial with all guarantees. The most common option in judicial practice, although it may be seen as a helping hand to the prosecution, would be to return the indictment to **Hazte Oír** so it can correct the errors within a short deadline. This last option, however, could be used by the defense as an argument in future challenges.

## The consequences of formal errors

Formal errors in judicial proceedings can have significant consequences. In this case, the lack of rigor in filing the indictment by **Hazte Oír** has peine the door to the possibility that the case against **Begoña Gómez** may never go to trial. The jury law, designed to guarantee impartiality and the proper administration of justice, is inflexible when it comes to procedure. A formal defect, if not properly corrected, can invalidate the entire process, regardless of how strong the evidence might be. The defense of **Begoña Gómez** has already stated its intention to use these arguments to defend its client's rights.