Producer Raffi Pina asked the Boston Court of Appeals to reverse the verdict on one of the charges against him and to vacate the conviction in at least two complaints so that he could order a new trial in district court. in San Juan.
Similarly, the Pina Defense asked the Appellate Court of the First Federal Circuit to consider ordering that the case be referred to a different judge, “without a negative opinion of the case, the legal issues involved, the defendants and the defendants.” the lawyer.”
The requests are contained in an appeals report submitted by the manufacturer’s defense this week and now the federal prosecutor’s office must respond in 30 days. Later, Boston will decide whether to hold a reasoned hearing.
After a week-long trial, a jury found Pina guilty on two counts last December and then in May sentenced her to three years and five months in prison. The first reported him illegal possession of a weapon by a criminal. Another accused him of having a converted weapon to fire automatically.
The appeal report stated that, for the second charge, the Public Ministry was required to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that Pina knew that the weapon in question had characteristics brought within the definition of ‘automatic weapon’.” “
In that sense, he pointed out that the federal prosecutor’s office “provided no evidence that Pina ever saw, much less handled or fired a weapon, the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction.”
In the meantime, he insisted that the federal court in San Juan was wrong to allow an expression made in a motion by a defense attorney before the trial to be used as evidence.
He condemned that, taking a sentence from the document, that Pina had resigned to go to prison, “and arguing this as evidence of the prudence of the crime, Turned the defense lawyer into a disastrous witness against his own client for the irreparable loss of Pina.”
He insisted that because “the repeated exploitation of that argument” by the Public Ministry was “not harmless, Pina’s sentence should be revoked.”
Along the same lines, he pointed out that the use of that expression caused a conflict of interest with his lead attorney and “denied Pina the right to effective relief without conflict under the Sixth Amendment” of the Constitution of the United States of America”.
He said that by turning his defense attorney into a “witness” against him, Pina “did not have the opportunity to sit down to testify him so that he could explain the context and meaning of the expression.”
In another argument discussed earlier, the other appellate body alleged that when the district court in San Juan completely suppressed the statement of one of the defense witnesses, it also denied Pina’s Sixth Amendment rights. Gone.
“That witness must 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 had dominance and Whether there was power and intention to exercise control over the arms and ammunition in question,” he said.
The Public Ministry relied on the “constructive possession” provision and alleged that Pina was in control of two firearms confiscated from a house in Caguas owned by Pina.