The trial for the assassination of Samuel Luiz, on July 3, 2021, in La Coruña, ended with the arguments of the lawyers defending the five defendants and the last word for them, from which everyone benefited. In different situations, the strategies were separate for each of them, but they agreed to try to demonstrate that the attack was comparable to a pack, as described by the prosecutor, and to deny that the motivation was homophobia. This crime sparked a protest movement against attacks against the LGTBI community, with demonstrations across Spain, because the last thing the victim heard before he started being beaten was: “Stop recording me, let’s see if I’m going to kill you. , faggot.
During the last session, the lawyer of Diego MM, the accused who admitted to having unleashed the fatal blows, Luis Manuel Salgado, wondered if his client’s intervention had been the cause of Samuel’s death. He began to hit him, which he described as “indisputable”, but he maintains that he did not then continue to attack him, reports Europa Press. “This is what we must analyze and why we must condemn Diego, but we cannot fall into the simplistic way of saying that, while Diego hits Samuel and dies from a succession of blows, he killed him and l ‘did it treacherously’. he told the jury. His client, he added, must pay, but only “for what he actually did.” “Go for the tests,” he insisted.
He tried to show that the motivation was homophobic: “The reason why he hits him is the confusion with the video call and the rest is just stories. » And he tried to sow doubt as to whether the intention was to kill: “If one of these children who hit Samuel imagines that he is going to die, he will shit his pants and even God will not touch Samuel.” He also maintained that he had the possibility of defending himself and mentioned the intervention of two Senegalese migrants who, however, were not able to completely stop the blows launched by the attackers.
For Diego MM, the prosecution maintains the request for 25 years in prison for murder aggravated by discrimination based on sexual orientation. His defense requests homicide for serious recklessness and the crime of injury, for which he requests two and one year respectively, and, if not taken into account, homicide, with a sentence of ten years in prison . The accused used his right to speak at the end to once again ask the family for forgiveness and express his regrets: “If I could give my life to Samuel, I would give it to him without thinking.”
David Freire, Alejandro FG’s lawyer, known as Yumba, also argued that the accused did not intend to kill Samuel. He reduced his client’s intervention to grabbing him by the neck from behind for five seconds and a “struggle.” “If my client intervenes from the beginning, that’s not the same as someone striking when he’s no longer standing,” he said. He called on the jury to conduct an “objective” analysis of the evidence and avoid relying on “emotions.” The prosecution is asking for 22 years in prison for this accused of murder, as in the rest of the cases, with cruelty and treason. His defense asks that this be considered a crime of injury or, failing that, reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter. In his last word, Alejndro FG apologized again.
For Kaio ASC, this is the accused for whom the highest sentence is requested: 27 years in prison because the murder was aggravated by the violent theft of the victim’s cell phone. One of the main elements against him is that a witness claimed to have seen him lift his leg to kick and that the police who examined the images believe that he makes this gesture, although it is not known. can’t see how it ends because a lamppost covers it. His lawyer, Ramón Sierra, also tried to argue that there is no conclusive evidence against his client: “Being there does not imply participation.” And he criticized the prosecution’s interpretation that they behaved like a pack: “They are not a pack, nor a pack, nor Jewish hunters. “It’s demagoguery.”
The accused in turn stated that his intention that night was to “have a good time” with his friends after work. “And it all ended very badly, but I didn’t touch Samuel at any time, I don’t care what other people think.” And he spoke to his mother, present at the trial, to tell her that he is not a murderer.
Regarding the theft of the mobile phone, the lawyer said he regretted that Kaio ASC admitted in court that he had sold stolen devices on other occasions. He may be, he said, “a chorizo and a fool”, but he maintained that his intervention was intended to try to stop the assault. He requests the acquittal of his client and maintains only a conviction for damage to property by telephone.
Defendants who are not in prison
Catherine SB’s lawyer, Luciano Prado, insisted that no testimony places her as attacked or incited to attack him and that she could not do more to stop this brutal attack: “A girl of 50 kilos and 1.50 will be able to stop all this! “No one helped this boy and there were little men,” he added, arguing that if it was a question of judging her for not having helped, most of the witnesses who who attended the trial should have sat on the stand. He also attacked the comparison with a pack: “These things happen, but I’ve never seen a pack leader.”
On the other hand, they announced that they would request the opening of false testimony against Samuel’s friend, Lina, who said that Catherine SB had also called Samuel a “fucking faggot”. The lawyer argues that this is not true and wonders why “he only said it on the day of the trial.” “I don’t know why we are introducing this trial with this folklore of homosexuality; “That has nothing to do with it,” he added. She took advantage of her turn to defend that she had “done nothing wrong”: “I just tried to stop my boyfriend, I couldn’t do anything else. » For her, 25 years in prison are required, although the Prosecutor’s Office has introduced in its final position the possibility that, as an alternative, she could be sentenced as an accessory to murder to 14 and a half years. His lawyer requests acquittal.
Regarding Alejandro MR’s defense, he said there was “no evidence” that his client participated in the fatal attack on Samuel Luiz. “We see him doing nothing,” he insisted, and “running is not a crime, it is not an action that collaborates in Samuel’s bite, nor calling or being called.” “It is indecent that this guy is sitting here,” he said, because “not a single defendant names him, not a single witness.” “It’s one thing to be a coward, to have no empathy, to have looked the other way. It is one thing to stand there and do nothing, and another thing to participate in death,” he emphasized. Regarding the comparison with a pack, lawyer Manuel Ferreiro maintains that “it is not a pack. “This pack from Pamplona planned what they were going to do on their cell phones.”
For him, the request for 22 years in prison is maintained, even if, as in the case of Catherine, the possibility of a sentence for complicity in murder of 13 years in prison is raised. His lawyer requests acquittal. The accused addresses the jury in turn: “Gentlemen and ladies, I sincerely believe that you are not going to believe me. “I am deeply sorry for what happened to Samuel Luiz on that tragic night of July 3 and for what his family and loved ones are experiencing.” “I only ask you to do justice, to be fair to me, I am completely innocent of this,” he said.
