News

Raphy Pina asks the Court of Appeals in Boston to order a new trial

Producer Raphy Pina asked the Boston Court of Appeals to reverse the verdict on one of the charges against him and, at the very least, vacate the convictions in the two complaints so that he could order a new trial in district court. In San Juan.

Likewise, the Pina defense asked the appellate court of the First federal Circuit to consider ordering that the case be assigned to a different judge, “one without the entrenched negative opinions of this case, the legal issues involved, the defendant and the defense attorney.”

The requests are contained in the appeal report presented by the producer’s defense this week and that now the federal prosecutor’s office has to answer in 30 days. Afterward, Boston will decide whether to hold an argumentative hearing.

After a week-long trial, a jury found Pina guilty last December on two counts and then, in May, he was sentenced to three years and five months in prison. The first reported him for the illegal possession of a weapon by a convict. The second accused him of having an altered weapon to shoot automatically.

The appeal report states that, for the second charge, the Public Ministry “had the requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pina knew that the weapon in question had the characteristics brought within the definition of ‘automatic weapon’.”

In that sense, he pointed out that the federal prosecutor’s office “did not produce evidence that Pina ever saw, much less handled or fired the weapon, the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction.”

Meanwhile, he insisted that the federal court in San Juan was wrong to allow an expression made by one of the defense attorneys in a motion prior to trial to be used as evidence.

He denounced that by taking a sentence from the document, that Pina was resigned to going to prison, “and arguing it as evidence of conscience of guilt, turned the defense attorney into a devastating unsworn witness against his own client, to Pina’s irreparable harm.”

He stressed that because “the repeated exploitation of that argument” by the Public Ministry “was not harmless, Pina’s convictions must be annulled.”

Along the same lines, he pointed out that the use of that expression caused a conflict of interest with her lead attorney and “deprived Pina of her right to effective relief without conflict under the Sixth Amendment” of the United States Constitution”.

He added that by turning his defense attorney into a “witness” against him, Pina did not have the “opportunity to sit him down to testify so that he could explain the context and meaning of the expression.”

In another argument previously discussed, the other appellate body charged that Pina’s Sixth Amendment rights were also denied when the district court in San Juan completely suppressed the statement of one of the defense witnesses.

“That witness would have provided testimony and documentary evidence that Pina had been living for some time, primarily in Miami, and not in Puerto Rico, evidence that was clearly relevant to the question of whether he possessed the power and intent to exercise dominance and control over the weapons and ammunition in question,” he said.

The Public Ministry relied on the “constructive possession” provision to allege that Pina was in control of the two firearms that were seized from a house in Caguas that is owned by Pina.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button