Surprise in the Supreme Court: the State Attorney General ends up renouncing the expert witness on the "Enfocats" document and the Moleskine agendaProsecutor Zaragoza, who was questioning a Guardia Civil officer on the subject, gave up after an interrogation that was hotly questioned by the defence counsels
Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza desisted from continuing to question the Guardia Civil officer who talked about Jové's Moleskine agenda
The "Enfocats" document and the Moleskine agenda with notes by Josep Maria Jové, Junqueras' former right-hand man, are two of the main pieces of evidence that have supported the accusations against the defendants in the Catalan Independence Trial, and they have suddenly lost part of their value as evidence for charges against the accused.
The reason for this is that the witness who was supposed to discuss them has been unable to do so. Even though they will not have an expert assessment, the Court may nevertheless take these documents as such into account, as well as whatever witnesses have said about them.
The first witness "falls"
The beginning of the afternoon sitting on 23 May, the second day of the expert witness phase, has been quite turbulent. Two Guardia Civil officers, who were supposed to give statement as expert witnesses, entered the court.
The first one, who was the head of the judiciary police operation in the Economy building on 20-S, "fell" immediately. The defence counsels stated that he had already testified as a witness and that they had challenged his ability to testify as an expert. After a brief deliberation, Marchena dismissed the Guardia Civil officer.
A failed questioning
The Court did accept the statement of the other Guardia Civil officer, the sergeant with TIP number R92560Q, and warned that he would not do so as a specialist, but as an "expert witness". The interrogation, however, failed, and prosecutor Javier Zaragoza ended up renouncing it.
Javier Zaragoza , during the interrogation of the sergeant giving statement as an "expert witness"
Zaragoza first asked him about "Enfocats", the 41-page PowerPoint document whose author is unknown, and which is interpreted as an informal roadmap of the unilateral path to independence. The defendants and the witnesses in the trial, however, have stated that they are unaware of this document and question its authenticity.
The defence counsels have complained that he was to be interrogated about documents seized in Josep Maria Jové's office, and that this was not the case, Marchena ended up agreeing with them.
The prosecutor attempted to continue with another document that contained "annotations on the referendum", which the witness specified were "handwritten". The document in question was, therefore, the Moleskine agenda. The witness stated that:
"As you [the prosecutor] stated earlier, there are references to popular, citizen mobilisation, and it is interesting to note that this is a citizen mobilisation coordinated from the government."
In spite of warnings from Marchena so that the witness should abstain from making assessments, questions "slipped towards that path", in the terms used by Marchena, who did not abstain from telling the prosecutor that "The assessments are the result of the invitations you make in your questions."
Marina Roig, the attorney of Jordi Cuixart, making an objection before the questions to Guardia Civil officer R92560Q
The defence counsels objected because they stated that the documents on which the witness was being questioned were not included, only the report he had drafted on them.
Seeing that he had no way out, the prosecutor said that he renounced the questioning due to the "difficulties" he encountered. Marchena then nuanced this term:
"Zaragoza: In view of the enormous difficulties encountered to carry on with the questioning, and despite the fact that the analysis of the documents is in the report, this party hereby renounces continuing with questioning.
Marchena: These are not difficulties, these are conceptual obstacles that arise from the intentions of the prosecution."
- Catalan independence trial