A panel of judges from the Boston First Circuit Court of Appeals submitted several questions on Tuesday to investigate allegations of error in the murder trial of Canadian businessman Adam Anhang.

The issues were raised during a hearing on the appeal of Aurea Vazquez Rijos, Marcia Vazquez Rijos and Jose Ferrer Sosasentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy Alex Pabón Colon, aka “El Loco”assassinated Anhang on September 21, 2005, in Old San Juan.

Pabón Colón confessed to the crime in 2008, when he pleaded guilty and said he was hired by the convicts with a promise of $3 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE TO SEE MORE CONTENT

In today’s hearing, the three appellate judges spent a lot of time asking how the jury was told by District Judge Daniel Domínguez that he had determined that Pabón Colón was “competent” to to plead guilty.

The fact that the judge’s statement was included in the instructions to the jury caught the attention of the appeal judge. Kermit Lipez.

In fact, Lipez was the first to raise the issue, after the first two attorneys devoted the first few minutes of their presentations to other arguments.

“I’m surprised they didn’t mention the judge’s decision to take judicial notice of the change in allegation (of guilt),” Lipez said, asking Lydia Lizarríbar, lawyer for Áurea Vázquez Rijos, to discuss whether it was an “error” that may have had an effect on the “credibility of the witness”.

Lizarríbar and the other two defense attorneys argued that this was “an error” as it affected their attempts to project to the jury that Pabón Colón was not credible.

Later, Lipez asked in a more exacerbated tone when another of the defense lawyers, Carlos Sánchez, representative of Marcia Vázquez Rijos, indicated that Pabón Colón’s “competition” notice was included during the transmission. instructions to the jury.

Lipez also insistently questioned the prosecutor about it. Sofia M. Vickeryof the Appeals Section of the Federal Department of Justice in Washington DC

“Is it appropriate for the court to enter into the argument over the credibility of a cooperating witness? Why wasn’t that a mistake?” Lipez asked.

Vickery played down the issue, saying the problem arose when questions were raised about the mental state of the star witness and Dominguez included in the instructions that the jury did not have to agree with the statements of the judge.

Asked by Lipez what would be the effect of this forum concluding that it was a mistake, the prosecutor said it would be “harmless” because other evidence was presented to support the credibility of Pabón’s testimony. Colon.

Furthermore, he argued that part of certain arguments should not be considered in the appeal because they were presented by the defense outside of regular time, which was rejected by Lizarríbar.

On the other hand, the prosecutor faced heated questions from the panel of judges regarding reports that the defense was not notified when the evidence was discovered. This is a statement by Pabón Colón, before the trial, in which he said at some point that he did not want to testify in order to cooperate with the prosecution.

The lawyers argue that this statement represented a beneficial or potentially exculpatory element for their clients, and that it was important to confront the witness during the trial. The defense discovered this by seeing the phrase included in a transcript among the documents.

“It is disturbing that the Crown is so passive on evidentiary discovery obligations,” Lipez said. “How is this justified?”

Vickery acknowledged that “I disagree” that he was not notified as part of the evidence provided. “I think it should have been done, out of an abundance of caution.”

He admitted that the file does not explain what made him decide to cooperate again, since it happened after a meeting with his lawyer, José Aguayo.

For his part, the presiding judge of the court of appeal, David Barron, underlined that he was interested in the allegation of errors because of two remarks made by the judge before the jury.

One came as Anhang’s partner Roberto Cacho said that Áurea Vázquez Rijos had not invested any money in their business.

“She only had money if he died?” Is that true?” asked Domínguez, to which Cacho replied: “Only”.

The other comment Barron alluded to was at the end of the testimony of Ángel Marcano, brother of Jonathan Román, who was convicted and then released after the state trial for Anhang’s murder. Marcano spoke about a letter he received from Pabón Colón which was beneficial for Román’s defense.

“I guess you were excited when you read the letter,” the judge asked Marcano, who replied “very excited.”

The appeal alleges that the comment could project to the jury that the court lent credibility to Pabón Colón’s letter.

In turn, Federal Appeals Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson repeated several questions, expressing surprise that attorneys for Ferrer Sosa and Marcia Vázquez Rijos had not received the medical records on Pabón Colón’s mental health before the trial, despite a court order.

On this issue, the lawyers of the three convicts pointed out that the psychological evaluations to which Pabón Colón was subjected after the trial concluded that since his youth he seems to have mental disorders with diagnoses that should have been detected before the trial, reason for which it is presented as new evidence to request a new trial.