Rosario Robles’ defense asked the judge, Felipe de Jesús Delgadillo Padierna, to withdraw from the case, as it has been biased and has even engaged in «sobesive, belligerent, unheard of and ironic» conduct during the hearings, warns the document in which he stood the «recusal» that was given to him on Friday.
Judge Delgadillo Padierna will have 48 hours to respond if he excuses or continues to lead the case, but if he continues, the defendant could find himself inconforming by imposing an amparo, the defense explained to Animal Político.
Rosario Robles faces legal proceedings for the crime of improper exercise of the public service and Judge Delgadillo Padierna insisted on imposing as a precautionary measure pre-trial detention in the face of a «real risk of escape», so the accused remains in the criminal women’s women’s girl From Santa Martha Acatitla.
Read: Liar, Partial, Political Revenge: The Arguments at Rosario Robles’ Audience
In the «recusal» letter, attorneys Julio Hernández Barros and Epigmenio Mendieta argue that while Robles preserves the status of innocence during all phases of the process, the judge’s attitude «has evidenced aggressive, rude and against the defendant and her team of lawyers.»
It should be noted that Judge Delgadillo Padierna is the nephew of Dolores Padierna, whose husband, René Bejarano, was imprisoned after the broadcast in 2004 of the videos where he was seen receiving cash from the businessman Carlos Ahumada, then contractor of the Federal District government and sentimental partner of Robles.
The document states that the Federation’s Organic Law of the Judiciary establishes the impediment to hearing court cases because of «having a personal interest in the matter, or having it your spouse or relatives in a straight line without limitation of degree , in collateral by inbreeding until the fourth degree».
You may be interested: Judge decides that Rosario Robles should stay in prison; she says it’s an injustice
This and other legal sustenance, the defense insists, confirm that the judge should have been prevented from hearing the Criminal Case 314/2019, since the judge as a body reviewing the legality in the criminal proceedings, «had a duty to refrain from the knowledge of a matter in the cu there is a cause that the Act considers to be presumptive of bias.»
Even, the document says, «his personal conduct has been belligerent, unheard of and ironic against the interests of the procedural party I represent. Which, violently violently the human rights to due process».
The document also refers to a dialogue between the defence and the judge during the hearing on 22 October when the relevance of the prison was revised as a precautionary measure. This is because after an appeal by the defense, Judge Ricardo Paredes, determined that the measure violated Robles’ human rights and ordered that the hearing be repeated.
However, the judge upheld his prison decision for Robles because he had the financial means to «escape justice» and there was no certainty about his place of residence.
Read: FGR lied about my home, accuses Robles, and asks not to stay in prison for fabricated offenses
This is the dialogue that occurred at the last hearing:
– Judge Felipe de Jesús Delgadillo Padierna: It should be noted that at the previous hearing one of the appointed defenders expressly stated that the prosecution had failed to owe the duty of loyalty by not disclosing the office 1051/2019 of 19 July this year. Issued by the CENAPI, an affirmation that was expressly answered by the prosecution by indicating the volume and the sheet of the research folder where the document was made, an aspect that takes on special relevance because it is one more statement of the defense with falsehood as a repeated form of conduct at hearing, i.e. in criminal proceedings before a judicial authority because, despite being aware of an office, they denied their existence, the purpose of which would entail giving a procedural advantage to one of the parties, which did not happen and with that fallacious argument they harmed their representative, because they made it clear in their form of unfair conduct before authority and in the process, then defense to be clear, you came here to lie, you came here to tell lies and to express yourself as a Fake maa…!»
– Lawyer Julio Hernández Barros: Your Honor…
– Judge: You can’t interrupt me.
– Lawyer: No, yes, your honor.
– Judge: Because there is no debate.
– Lawyer: There is no debate, but I will not allow you if you hold an accusation, here is the body of Public Prosecutor’s Office and take it a move, because here I am not to be called a liar.
– Judge: You cannot speak.
What we do in Animal Político requires professional journalists, teamwork, dialogue with readers and something very important: independence. You can help us keep going. Be part of the team.
Subscribe to Animal Politician, receive benefits and support free journalism.#YoSoyAnimal