Cecilia case: popular jury could not reach agreement, verdict postponed

The murder trial of Cecilia Strzyzowski has entered its final stages amidst the highest expectations. However, no verdict was handed down. After six hours of deliberations, a long day that kept the Chaco state on edge, the popular jury reported that it had not reached the unanimity needed to resolve the criminal charges of the seven defendants. Judge Dolly Fernandez then ordered a recess until 8 a.m. this Saturday.

The decision surprised those involved, who had waited until the last moment for a definition. Emerenciano Sena’s lawyer Ricardo Osuna confirmed to the NA agency that the jury was divided. He asserted that “the two parties did not reach an agreement,” hinting that there may be “internal relations between the two parties.” He also said his client, like other defendants, was awaiting sentencing “with the same anxiety as the community.”

Friday’s hearing began as early as 8 a.m. at the Resistance Justice Research Center. This day was the final day of pre-deliberation debate and was dedicated to the defendant’s final words, the reading of instructions, and the retirement of the jury. The judge gave the seven defendants a chance to weigh in before the panel decided on murder, concealment, necessary participation and other charges related to Cecilia’s disappearance and death in June 2023.

The 12-member committee began its deliberations around noon, just before 1 p.m. The law requires internal discussions to last at least two hours, but the period can be extended as long as the possibility of reaching an agreement remains. Prosecutors reminded that in complex cases like this, juries have up to 11 days to reach a unanimous verdict, but decisions are usually made on the same day.

As time passed, the weather outside the building became more intense. At 5 p.m., the parties were brought back into the room because there were questions that needed clarification for the jury. The call fueled expectations and sparked a movement among those who watched the trial from the streets. Some motorists honked their horns as they passed, and Argentina’s flag could be seen fluttering in the rain that began to fall soon after.

Deliberations progressed, but unanimity was not reached. The court reported that more time was needed, and the judges decided to adjourn for the day and resume deliberations this Saturday with the same consolidation.

Last word. At the start of the marathon hearing, the seven defendants were given the chance to say their final words.

Cesar Sena was the first to take the microphone. The judge asked him if he wanted to add anything to what the defense had already said, but the young man flatly denied and replied, “No, sir.”

His father, Emerenciano Senna, also decided to intervene temporarily. “I’m innocent, sir. Thank you,” he answered, without asking further details or questions about the investigation, as he had done in the debate.

The most extensive statement among the family core was made by Cesar’s mother, Marcela Acuña. He first asserted his innocence, claiming he was “a person who would never harm another human being.”

He said the incident had been “mediated” and there had been “political exploitation” of the incident. She made it clear that she wanted “the truth to trump any decision,” and she said she applied that assertion to situations that other women experience as well. He noted that many prisoners are subject to “double punishment and double social punishment” because of the additional gender conditions attached to their confinement.

“The case began on the lie of illegal detention since the 9th,” he said, questioning the development of the case and adding, “Today the culprits are in executive power.”

Next, it was José Gustavo Obregon’s turn to speak, and he issued a statement focused on apologizing. He told the judge and jury: “I apologize if it was my intention to harm or offend anyone by my omission.” He explained that he accompanied Cesar Senna, “as I have done countless times before, out of love, respect and infinite gratitude for his parents,” and described Senna as “a fundamental pillar of my and my family’s life.”

Fabiana Cecilia González did not speak. Griselda Reynoso decided to speak, albeit very briefly. “With all due respect to his position and character, I declare that I am not responsible for what they are accusing me of and that I am innocent,” he said.

The last person to speak was Gustavo Melgarejo. Unlike Acuña and Obregon, he did not expand his intervention. He was adamant that he had nothing more to add, only saying, “I’ve already said everything I wanted to say.”

After hearing all the defendants, the judge concluded the final hearing and ordered popular jury instructions to be read before deliberations began. It was 9:28 in the morning. And at the time, no one expected such a long day and uncertain outcome.