https://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish-to-english/law-general/6589484-prueba-contradictoria.html
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.
Cookie settings
Crespera del café
en cañón
Nov 14, 2018 11:56
5 yrs ago
21 viewers *
Spanish term

prueba contradictoria

Spanish to English Law/Patents Law (general)
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."

Your suggestions are appreciated.
Proposed translations (English)
4 +3 rebuttal/rebutting evidence
4 +6 tested by counter-evidence through cross-examination
2 conflicting evidence

Discussion

Sandro Tomasi Nov 16, 2018:
@Rebecca That is key, and it helps us understand that this context may not be under cross examination.
Rebecca Jowers Nov 16, 2018:
Hi, again, Sandro 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").
Sandro Tomasi Nov 15, 2018:
@Rebecca 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.
Manuel Cedeño Berrueta Nov 15, 2018:
Thank you, Rebecca, it’s always a pleasure to read your posts, besides that it’s helpful
Richard Hill (asker) Nov 15, 2018:
@All 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!
Rebecca Jowers Nov 14, 2018:
Hi, Manuel, 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.
Rebecca Jowers Nov 14, 2018:
Hi, Sandro 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.
Manuel Cedeño Berrueta Nov 14, 2018:
...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...
Manuel Cedeño Berrueta Nov 14, 2018:
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
Sandro Tomasi Nov 14, 2018:
@Rebecca 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?
Rebecca Jowers Nov 14, 2018:
@Sandro 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.
philgoddard Nov 14, 2018:
Contradictoria is a false friend. It doesn't mean conflicting or contradictory.
Sandro Tomasi Nov 14, 2018:
@Liz 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.
Richard Hill (asker) Nov 14, 2018:
Trying to make “prueba contradictoria” work. 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.
liz askew Nov 14, 2018:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=9041127372 - Translate this page
Steven M. Kaplan - 2008 - ‎Foreign Language Study
... evidence prueba contable – accounting evidence prueba contradictoria – contradictory evidence prueba contraria – conflicting evidence prueba convincente ...
liz askew Nov 14, 2018:
ANd:
Dahl's Law Dictionary: Diccionario Juridico Dahl; Spanish-English / ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1575884526
Enrique S. Dahl, ‎Henry S. Dahl - 1999 - ‎Law
Conflict ofauthority. Conflicto deautoridades o de jurisdicciones. Conflict ofinterest. Conflictodeintereses. Conflict ... Conflicting evidence. Prueba contradictoria.
liz askew Nov 14, 2018:
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish-to-english/general-conver...
Mónica Hanlan Nov 14, 2018:
Cross examination It really does sound like "cross examination" but I have never seen it used like this... let's see what the rest of Proz community thinks. Good luck

Proposed translations

+3
3 hrs
Selected

rebuttal/rebutting evidence

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/
Peer comment(s):
agree Charles Davis : Yes, perhaps better than "counter-evidence". And Sandro has a point; I'm not sure you can really speak of "cross-examination" in Spain as we would understand it in our adversarial system.
19 mins
Thanks, Charles. "Examen contradictorio de testigos/de las partes" is the expression I've seen used in Spanish proceedings for what we think of as "cross-examination".
agree Manuel Cedeño Berrueta : Rebecca, you know both systems better than me/ better than I do
51 mins
Thanks, Manuel.
agree Yvonne Gallagher
21 hrs
Muchas graicas, Yvonne
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Spot on, thank you. And thanks to Manuel too for another well-informed alternative"
1 hr

conflicting evidence

https://thelawdictionary.org/conflicting-evidence/
What is CONFLICTING EVIDENCE? This term is given to evidence that is taken from different sources that contradict each other.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2018-11-14 13:00:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OR

contradictory evidence

Steven M. Kaplan - 2008 - ‎Foreign Language Study
... evidence prueba contable – accounting evidence prueba contradictoria – contradictory evidence prueba contraria – conflicting evidence prueba convincente ...
Page navigation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next




purely from the references. No legal knowledge.
Peer comment(s):
agree Eileen Brophy
51 mins
neutral philgoddard : No, contradictoria means hearing submissions from the parties.
1 hr
neutral Sandro Tomasi : Black's: "conflicting evidence. Evidence that comes from different sources and is often irreconcilable."
1 hr
disagree AllegroTrans : you have misunderstood the concept here; it's about evidence that has been tested on hearing both sides
2 hrs
Something went wrong...
+6
2 hrs

tested by counter-evidence through cross-examination

tested by counter-evidence through cross-examination

[90] Evidencia de refutación o de contradicción, es la que establece hechos que contradicen con el del adversario; es prueba contradictoria, que tiene por objeto minar o contradecir la prueba del contrario, BERGMAN, Paul, La defensa en juicio..., p. 27. En este punto, es importante aclarar que la parte que inició la presentación de la prueba afirmativa, tendrá una segunda oportunidad de presentar prueba para rehabilitar la que le ha sido rebatida.
(http://www.accesocapacitacion.com/recursos/articulos-varios/...

----------
[prueba contradictoria]
Los principios generales en que se inspira el desarrollo de esta prueba, como en su momento señalé, son los de oralidad, contradicción, concentración, inmediación y publicidad. Desaparecidas las preguntas escritas o posiciones típicas de la confesión judicial, el interrogatorio será enteramente oral (artículos 301 y 305), realizado contradictoriamente ( artículo 289 .1 ), con participación de todos los letrados de las partes comparecidas (artículo 306.1), en unidad de acto (artículo 290), a presencia inexcusable del juez o tribunal que esté conociendo del asunto (artículos 137 y 289.2) y en audiencia pública (artículos 138.1 y 289.1).
(…)

Cuando un litigante reconoce hechos personales que le perjudican tiene que ser creído adquiriendo certeza los hechos incluso sobre aquellos deducidos por el juez. Ahora bien, es claro el precepto cuando matiza que las declaraciones del interrogatorio se refutarán como ciertas siempre que no queden contradichos con otros medios. El interrogatorio solo podrá ser refutado o desvirtuado por la colisión contradictoria con el resto de medios de prueba.
(http://www.ralyjmurcia.es/sites/default/files/Número 25.2006...

=====
The defense attempted to counter the State's evidence through a cross-examination focused on a police failure to document in any way Defendant's purported statements.   In light of the undisputed absence of any record of Defendant's statements such as a videotape, an audiotape, written confession or contemporaneous notes, a recording of Robert Hoover stating that his father told him where the gun came from cannot be characterized as harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.16  Point granted.
(https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1140915.html...
========

Meanwhile, lawyer James Grant emphasises that unlike a criminal trial, the inquiry does not require Zuma to counter the evidence against him through cross-examination.
(https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2018-09-10-jacob-...
---------

The defence, in response sought to counter this evidence during their cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
(https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/34497975/39...
Peer comment(s):
agree Charles Davis : Excellent idea! I was thnking of "counter-evidence" too.
35 mins
Thank you, Charles
agree philgoddard : Couldn't you just say "subjected to cross-examination"?
37 mins
That was my first thought, but then I thought it would be clearer/more clear this way
agree Sandro Tomasi : Agree w/ counter-evidence; I prefer rebuttal evidence. Not sure @ cross-examination due to Spain's inquisitorial system. Do they have cross or are just allowed to present rebutting evidence? // Acusatorio mixto; so to what extent does mix apply to this?
49 mins
Thank you, Sandro. I believe that the inquisitorial system is not used now in Spain: “El sistema de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal de España para el proceso ordinario por delitos es el sistema acusatorio formal o mixto.” (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/
agree AllegroTrans
54 mins
Thank you, Chris
agree Parrot : I'm for "subjected to cross-examination"
56 mins
Thank you, Cecilia
agree Meridy Lippoldt
10 hrs
Thank you, Meridy
Something went wrong...