New turn in the courts. The judicial soap opera that was the case Dani Alvesaccused of committing a sexual assault at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona on the night of December 30, 2022, seemed to come to an end last February. Two and a half weeks after the trial, the sentence came: four years and six months in prison. Time that could be increased after the decision of the Barcelona Prosecutor’s Office to appeal the sentence against the Brazilian.
As legal sources have informed EFE, The Public Ministry would already be preparing the appeal considering that the mitigating circumstance of repairing the damage cannot be applied.materialized in the 150,000 euros that Alves contributed to the procedure and which allowed the sentence to be reduced.
Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the private prosecution opposed the application of the aforementioned mitigating circumstance during the trial.. It was then argued that the amount responded to the setting that the investigating judge set as bail for Alves when he was prosecuted and that, in addition, could be discriminatory if the comfortable economic capacity of the accused was taken into account.
The resources of all parties
This appeal will be added to the one presented, in the opposite direction, by Alves’s lawyer. Ins Guardiola, the lawyer in charge of the footballer’s defense, intends to insist on the innocence of his client arguing that the relationships that gave rise to the accusation were consensual. Along with this, and awaiting the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, it is on their roadmap to request provisional release for Alves.
It also goes through the plans of the victim’s lawyer, Ester Garcapresent an appeal that, as was shown in court, would go in the same direction as the one presented by the Prosecutor’s Office. That is, he would seek a higher sentence. More years in prison.
In fact, the complainant’s lawyer has already stressed the absence of any type of economic or moral effort in the payment of the aforementioned 150,000 euros. García was clear about this: It gives the impression that the mitigating circumstance is applied to privileged people, who have resources. And this is not the purpose of the law.
