Defense Expects Judge to Rule According to the Law in Odebrecht Case

2026-03-04 - 01:08

After the defense of former president Ricardo Martinelli exposed the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence gathering to support its accusation in the Odebrecht case, the judge is expected to issue her final verdict based on the evidence presented at the hearing and “sound judgment”; otherwise, due process and the right to cross-examination, to which all those involved in cases of this type are entitled, would not be respected. Lawyer Alfredo Vallarino argues that the request for acquittal of at least five of the alleged perpetrators of money laundering is a sign that the prosecution did not do a good job because it is not possible that, after 11 years in which their honor and reputation have been tarnished, the conclusion is that they have no connection to the case, that is, “they are innocent”. An inconsistency that, in his opinion, demonstrates that just as the Prosecutor’s Office made a mistake with these five people, it could also have done so with the rest. “The same prosecutors who brought these people to trial are now asking for their acquittal,” he stated. According to the jurist, these actions are what give the cross-examination its greatest value because it is the only mechanism the defense has to refute the prosecution’s charges. However, in the ordinary hearing of the Odebrecht case, its use has been limited. Witnesses and collaborators have not appeared to substantiate their assertions before the Court, allowing the case to continue based on flawed statements from years ago that clearly lack technical and scientific rigor, as precisely happened with Damaris Rodríguez Araúz, who was supposed to explain how, in less than 24 hours, she prepared a report based on more than 47,000 pages from Switzerland, the United States, and Andorra, but she did not respond to Judge Baloisa Marquínez’s summons. This contempt was supported by prosecutor Ruth Morcillo, who, during the pleading phase, asserted that the “hardline” defense lawyers wanted to bring her to the Court even though it had been made clear that she was not an expert witness, but surprisingly, part of her reports were used to generate an expert opinion whose conclusions demand to be taken into account for the issuance of the ruling. According to lawyer Basilio González, the former official of the Division of Crimes against Public Administration of the Directorate of Judicial Investigation (DIJ) signed two documents that are part of the case file, an expert report and a financial report, without being a certified public accountant. He pointed out that the Prosecutor’s Office has had a “void” since the beginning of the investigation because not even the Odebrecht executives, who are the prosecution witnesses, appeared at the hearing. González reiterated that the case file contains evidence that should not even be considered when issuing an acquittal or conviction ruling because there are more doubts than certainties, which favors the defendant; therefore, he hopes that Judge Marquínez will act accordingly. Arguments The legal team of former president Ricardo Martinelli, in the last day of arguments, requested the acquittal of their client because the Prosecutor’s Office has not proven his criminal responsibility in the case, the rejection of the request for civil action and the lifting of the precautionary measures imposed because he is being blamed for an act he did not commit, since the political donations of the Brazilian construction company were duly declared. February 27, the date on which the pleading phase of the Odebrecht trial ended. 30 days, the initial period that Judge Baloisa Marquínez will have to issue the ruling.