Arnoldo Wiens' defense challenges prosecutor confirmation in Metrobús case

The defense team for Arnoldo Wiens has filed a challenge against the State Attorney General's Office resolution that confirmed the three prosecutors leading the Metrobús case against the politician. This move comes shortly after the prosecutors filed charges against Wiens, a presidential pre-candidate for the ANR party.

Attorneys Alfredo Enrique Kronawetter and Federico Huttemann submitted a written appeal contesting Resolution No. 329, issued on August 7. This resolution rejected a recusal request filed against prosecutors Giovanni Grisetti, Nathalia Silva, and Yeimy Adle. The defense argues that the decision was not based on a thorough analysis of the arguments presented to the head of the Public Ministry but relied on generic justifications that do not accurately reflect the substance of their claims.

Kronawetter and Huttemann highlighted that the resolution incorrectly attributes arguments to them, including claims of personal enmity or bias, which they assert were never made. "We never alleged enmity, personal animosity, particular interest, partiality, or any of the grounds provided for magistrates in Article 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as erroneously stated in the challenged resolution," the filing reads.

The defense emphasized that their recusal request was not based on a mere disagreement with the prosecution's hypothesis. Instead, it stemmed from a specific procedural issue: the prosecutors allegedly summoned Wiens for a second investigative statement concerning charges of embezzlement and damage to constructed works or technical work tools. This occurred despite the Guarantee Criminal Court having already initiated proceedings and accepted the indictment solely for the embezzlement charge.

To illustrate the alleged lack of foundation in the resolution, the defense pointed to a statement by State Attorney General Emiliano Rolón Fernández regarding supposed partiality. They argue that this reasoning is inapplicable to their case, as it is exclusively meant for judges. The defense contends that this discrepancy alone demonstrates a significant deficit in the resolution's justification.

“

We never alleged enmity, personal animosity, particular interest, partiality, or any of the grounds provided for magistrates in Article 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as erroneously stated in the challenged resolution.