Panamas Judicial merry-go-round

Tactics used by defense lawyers in a series of high profile corruption cases seem to have become standard procedure with those claiming innocence of charges against them apparently unwilling to get their day in court to prove their point.
The prime example is Panama’s former president Ricardo Martinelli, currently in detention in Miami. attempting to avoid extradition to Panam to initially face charges of illegal interception of computer and phone messages of at least 150 political opponents, journalists and businessmen for which, if found guilty he could face up to 20 years in jail, with a series of corruption charges waiting in the wings, buttressed by a battery of well paid lawyers he has attempted to block his appearance to face what he prefers to term “political persecution” including charges of rifling the public purse of millions of dollars.
His two sons, facing charges involving multi-millions of dollars stashed away in banks in Switzerland and Andorra are also fattening the pockets of legal teams using delaying tactics as the government moves to extradite them from the United States.
Meanwhile smaller fish are taking their lead from those with deeper pockets, but coming up short. The Supreme Court (CSJ) has confirmed the ruling of the First Superior Court denying an Amparo of constitutional guarantees presented by Mayte Pellegrini, in the investigation related to the presumed commission of financial crimes in the now defunct Financial Pacific (FP) brokerage. Pelligrini is the one who blew the whistle on the Martinelli High Spirit account at FP, and alleged attempts of then AG,(now judge) Ayu Prado to get her to change her story.
On Friday, April 6, the CSJ explained that on March 9, the court rejected the appeal presented by Pellegrini, through her lawyer Kevin Moncada which questioned the decision of the substitute second criminal judge (Esther Bósquez Núñez) , that in October 2017 set the date for the preliminary hearing of the case: from December 18 to 21.
Pellegrini’s defense argued that at that time Bósquez served as a judge’s assistant, “so did not count with competence to exercise jurisdictional functions, such as setting hearing dates.”
The First Superior Court considered that this argument was not viable since the official had been designated to occupy the position during the vacations of the chief judge. The preliminary hearing could not be held on the date scheduled by Judge Bósquez.
According to the CSJ communique o on March 23, 2018, Pellegrini replaced Moncada with PRD deputy Zulay Rodríguez, who is now her defense lawyer and addition, a clarification of Tello’s ruling of March 9 was requested.
The CSJ adds that on March 27, a draft of the project came out of the magistrate’s office. regarding the request for clarification of the ruling that was circulated among all the magistrates of the plenary session for reading. The draft resolution has returned to the rapporteur’s office and is pending the signature of one magistrate.