In the Odebrecht case, the defense scored a major victory by demonstrating that the Public Ministry (MP) is attempting to build its case on a collection of irregular documents. The lawyers for former President Ricardo Martinelli presented the prosecution's own report, in which MP representative Ruth Morcillo recommended the judge dismiss the case due to lack of evidence to support the charges. Ángel Álvarez, counsel for Martinelli, filed a general objection against all of the MP's extraordinary evidence. The defense pointed out numerous deficiencies, including incomplete or incorrect translations, missing apostilles, and a lack of proper identification for translators. For instance, evidence from Singapore lacked an apostille and translator identification; evidence from Andorra was challenged due to a missing apostille and a private, unaccredited translation; and evidence from computer systems lacked any record of the extraction procedure or judicial authorization. The defense also highlighted discrepancies between the prosecution's descriptions and the actual documents submitted. These actions have dealt a significant blow to the credibility of the Public Ministry, exposing fundamental flaws in its evidence management.
Defense Scores Victory in Odebrecht Case, Challenging Prosecution's Evidence
In the Odebrecht case, the defense for former President Martinelli successfully challenged all evidence presented by the prosecution. Lawyers identified numerous violations, including missing apostilles, lack of translator identification, invalid translations, and an absence of procedures for digital data extraction. These actions have cast doubt on the foundation of the charges and dealt a blow to the Public Ministry's credibility.
