This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general)
Spanish term or phrase:prueba contradictoria
From a judge's written opinion on a drug trafficking case in Spain.
Could this by any change mean "cross-examination", in that her testimony was invalid because she did not attend the hearing and was therefore not subjected to cross-examination? Or something else entirely?
Unfortunately this job contains a lot of terminology for which there are very few, and sometimes no, references online.
"A ambos la Audiencia Provincial les condena por haber vendido una papelina de heroína a [name].
Pero [name] no acudió al juicio oral, con lo cual su testimonio carece de validez al no haber sido sometida a la ***prueba contradictoria*** propia de tal acto solemne y, pro otro lado, a [name] no le fue ocupada la referida papelina que, por tanto, no pudo ser analizada.
Ante tales carencias, las declaraciones imprecisas hechos por los policías que declararon en el juicio respecto de este hecho concreto carecen de virtualidad como suficiente prueba de cargo."
Explanation: This is usually the meaning of "prueba contradictoria" when used in Spanish court proceedings.
(Since the person in question wasn't present at trial he couldn't present rebuttal evidence.)
Rebuttal Evidence Law and Legal Definition. Evidence produced by a party to oppose or disprove the evidence presented by his/her opponent is referred to as “rebuttal evidence” or “rebutting evidence.” Evidence offered to disprove or contradict the evidence presented by an opposing party. Rebuttal Evidence Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rebuttal-evidence/
As I mentioned earlier, there are different types of evidence and, as such, documentary evidence wouldn't necessarily be introduced by a witness. But, for example, an expert witness ("perito") might be called upon at trial to corroborate the asssertions made in an expert report ("dictamen pericial").
What is still not clear to me is if in Spain a party needs a witness through which to present evidence or if the party can just present evidence without a witness.
It's precisely as Rebecca says, that it's because the witness didn't appear at trial that the evidence couldn't be challenged.
I'm glad I asked the question, especially considering everybody's valuable and well-informed input, and that I wasn't far off on my interpretation re cross-examination, and Manuel definitely hit the nail on the head with a great answer, but I think Rebecca just topped it with slightly more precise term. Thank you all!
I agree that the means for rebutting evidence here would probably be through cross-examination (“examen contradictorio de testigos/partes/peritos, etc.”) at trial. But in legal English the technical term that I've seen for what you describe as “counter-evidence” is “rebuttal/rebutting evidence,” so I'm offering it simply as another option.
There are many types of evidence other than witness testimony (documentary evidence, expert witness reports, etc.). But in order to be valid any evidence gathered prior to trial must be corroborated at trial during which the opposing party has the opportunity to rebut it. In the passage to be translated, it appears that the person in question did not appear at trial and, thus, any evidence that he may have given previously (such as statements to the police) couldn’t be rebutted and, therefore, was considered invalid.
...disminuye significativamente su capacidad exoneradora de responsabilidad penal. . (…) Además se ha de señalar que en el presente plenario han acudido los miembros de los Cuerpos y Fuerzas de Seguridad del Estado que han participado en las detenciones, traslados y declaraciones, sometiendo a la contradicción de todas las partes su testimonio, contestando las preguntas formuladas por acusaciones y defensas, sin que se pueda considerar la realización de los malos tratos y torturas como una realidad, apareciendo mas bien como una excusa absolutoria. (…) La procesada ante el Juzgado se acogió al derecho a no declarar, y en el plenario solo contesto a su defensa, por lo que su alegato carece de la mas mínima contradicción y por tanto eficacia. Dada la gravedad de la acusación, debió someter a contradicción su explicación sobre este hecho, y no lo hizo voluntariamente. (http://rightsinternationalspain.org/uploads/noticia/41cc6ea3...
Rebecca: Possibly I am not understanding correctly, but I find that “someter a prueba contradictoria” is very similar to trying to rebut something through cross-examination, according to this judgment of the Audiencia Nacional. What do you think?
Pero además considero que se ha de tener en cuenta, que en el presente caso, el silencio de los procesados, negando a la contestación a las preguntas de la acusación pública y popular, adquiere como consecuencia jurídica, la de hurtar su alegato a la contradicción debida, lo que unido a la consideración de que tal contradicción, es entre otros uno de los principios en que se fundamenta el acto del juicio oral, la contestación únicamente a las preguntas de su defensa, se convertirse en una serie de manifestaciones de parte, que al se privada por el interesado de la citada contradicción debe quedar fuera del juicio como prueba, aun cuando pueda aporte datos que podrán ser ponderados con el contenido del resto de las pruebas practicadas en el plenario. En cualquier caso, su negativa a someter a la contradicción, su versión exculpatoria sobre la intencionalidad y finalidad de sus actividades que nos ocupan en este enjuiciamiento, disminuye si
Does evidence have to be introduced through a witness? If so, how does his testimonio carece de validez? Was the testimony not subject to cross-examination or was it not subject to only rebutting evidence?
You ask whether there is cross-examination in Spain. Just for info, in Spanish criminal proceedings the prosecutor, defense attorney, attorney for the private prosecutor ("acusación privada") if any, and the judge may all examine/cross-examine (ask questions of) the accused, the victim (if a party to the proceedings) and other witnesses.
As a side note, the two dictionaries you cite lean heavy towards Puerto-Rican legal Spanish, which has codified Anglicisms that are not used in the other 19 Spanish-speaking countries.
I tried to make the literal translation fit the context, but since they talk about the witness or her testimony not having been “SOMETIDA A la prueba contradictoria”, I keep coming back to cross-examination.
The best I can come up with using “conflicting evidence” is: “given that no conflicting evidence was produced…”.
But I still feel “cross-examination” fits the context, considering that the person who failed to attend the hearing was a witness to a criminal act, and considering “the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of statements…”. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
The jury is still out, so I’ll mull over it for a while longer.
Thank you Mónica and Liz for your comments and links.
