Chihuahua. Five lawyers, headed by Juan Carlos Mendoza, who defend former governor Cesar Horacio DJ, through a letter released today, question the health opinion by Dr. Adrián Holguín Pérez, a surgeon specializing in cardiology, who served as a judge on March refused in front of 30 that the former president had suffered a heart attack.
According to the plaintiffs, the doctor had several investigative folders against him and was unaware of the defendant’s medical history, which is why he confirmed that he could have been accessed by the Attorney General’s Office.
By this means, on behalf of our client, allow us to share with you the deep concern of this defense concerning the lack of loyalty and other principles which govern the public ministry in its function as well as in the exercise of the oath. Needed A doctor on the side of life.
We attribute the foregoing to the numerous violations of due process and principles governing criminal proceedings, as well as his performance in general; It is in the interest of this defense to share with citizens how the public ministry, “corals” in principle, does not cease to violate its principles and duties, carrying out actions that undoubtedly violate the integrity of those principles. reveal the lack of authority that binds them and how they compel them to violate any type of professionals in their capacity as experts in this matter of health.
The defense states that it is shameful and reprehensible that the Public Ministry has used a citizen such as Dr. Adrián Holguín Pérez, surgeon, and specialist in cardiology, who, before his intervention on March 30, had no agreement with the State Prosecutor’s Office had not made an employment commitment, nor with the health services that assist state prisons, nor with the Secretary of Public Safety and who, under unclear circumstances, answered a call from the latter’s secretary late on March 30, who went on to join the “Prisoner of Aquilus Cerdan”. Jail”, our defendant in this case, which he had never attended, without prior commitment to the said institutions, late at night, and his wife accompanied him.
Similarly, the said doctor appeared later in the day as a witness of public ministry and whose testimony was the only element to which the Controlling Judge attached importance to deny this defense, and certainly our respondent has argued the absurd and unsustainable grounds of preventive detention. changed the precautionary measure, said the expert, arguing the improbability that Mr. Duarte had suffered a heart attack, gave testimony in an even more bizarre manner, refusing to appear as a witness to answer the defense’s questions and even going so far as to “answer” a question… “already I know where this is going”; Thereby evidenced a lack of singular importance in an inquiry, but above all, a very likely violation of due process.
Said skepticism is accompanied by reason and is based on the fact that the doctor, as a “party”, has been credited with six investigative folders in recent years, namely: 19-2022-014580; 19-2022-012071; 19-2021-021681; 19-2010-400435; 19-2008-306799; 19-2008-017599 in some of which it appears as a “victim” attribute that could not be proven because the Public Ministry indicated that the facts denied by the doctor were not crimes or that the Public Ministry had “non-exercise “criminal action”, but also; in two of them, his investigation folders were “temporarily archived” and one in particular, the much-cited doctor appears as accused of the crime of eviction.
The above are all gross and sufficient ingredients for this defense, to contemplate the serious possibility of an apparent exchange of favors between the Public Prosecutor, who has an urgent need to indicate to “someone” at any cost that our defendant What Suffered was not a heart attack and that there is no risk.
Meanwhile, the doctors presented as witnesses by the prosecution and who can be called into question because of their involvement, suggest, at least, a patriarchal conflict figure and, above all, a defendant. has an investigation folder containing elements that indicate he may be potentially responsible for the offense of eviction; Therefore, the prosecutor’s office has the opportunity to “give life” to the temporary files to “find elements” that “injured” its property and missing or “elicited” the facts indicated as potentially responsible “For a very serious offense of eviction; Faced with such facts, it is by no means absurd that a professional, who till a few days ago was undisputed, leaves his family bed and attends a call without any element of corroboration. that our defendant did not suffer a heart attack and that such a heart attack was unlikely and that he only runs the risk of “treatable hypertension” without the need for specialized care; On the contrary and without sufficient diagnostic elements, the very unfortunate travesty of a heart attack, which has already been fully verified and even as one of the causes in the previous 24 hearings of the present Only recognized by the judge, which does not exhaust everything process is the purpose of criminal justice, namely, the clarification of historical truth, noted lawyers Jaime Teran Ruiz, Enrique Muñoz, Héctor Villasana, Juan Carlos Mendoza Luján and Irving Anchondo.
