info@societejuridique.com
Madrid: Paseo de la Castellana 216 8 ª Planta
Alicante: Av. Ansaldo Nº31, local 16
24h emergencies: 669 30 21 13
Article 714 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act: reading out a contradictory pre-trial statement
Quick answerArticle 714 allows any party to request that a statement made during the investigation be read out where the witness’s evidence at trial is not substantially consistent with it. Once read, the presiding judge invites the witness to explain the difference or contradiction.
The provision is the procedural device by which the content of pre-trial statements is brought into the trial debate when the person departs from them. Its brevity contrasts with the extensive doctrine interpreting it, since the whole regime for assessing previous statements has been built on this article and on article 730. The key, repeatedly stated by the Constitutional Court and the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, is that what the court assesses is not the statement read out as such, but the explanation the witness gives at trial about the contradiction, subject to adversarial examination and immediacy.
Also cited as: article 714 Spanish Criminal Procedure Act · art. 714 LECrim · LECrim article 714 · artículo 714 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal.
Wording of the provision
Where the witness’s evidence at trial is not substantially consistent with that given during the investigation, any of the parties may request that the latter be read out.
Once it has been read, the presiding judge shall invite the witness to explain the difference or contradiction observed between the statements.
Consolidated text published by the Spanish Official State Gazette, Royal Decree of 14 September 1882 approving the Criminal Procedure Act. Unofficial English rendering; the Spanish text is the authentic one.
Sentencing range. The provision lays down no time limit or sanction: it creates a right of the parties and a duty of the presiding judge to require an explanation of the contradiction.
Key facts
| Location | Book III, title III, chapter III of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the taking of evidence |
|---|---|
| Purpose | To bring the contradictory pre-trial statement into the debate and test its credibility |
| Standing | Any party, prosecution or defence |
| Premise | Lack of substantial consistency between the trial evidence and the pre-trial statement |
| Role of the presiding judge | To invite the witness to explain the difference or contradiction |
| Analogous application | Extended by case law to the defendant and the expert, despite the wording referring to witnesses |
| Wording | Original 1882 text, unamended since |
Elements and scope
- Existence of a statement made during the investigation with the safeguards proper to that stage, in particular legal assistance for the suspect where required.
- Evidence given by the witness at trial that is not substantially consistent with it, requiring a material discrepancy and not an incidental nuance.
- A request by a party, the provision not providing for reading of the court’s own motion, although practice accepts that the presiding judge may suggest it under article 683.
- Actual reading of the pre-trial statement at the hearing, recorded in the minutes or in the recording.
- The presiding judge’s invitation to the witness to explain the contradiction, an essential step whose omission deprives the exercise of evidential effect.
Points of application
What is assessed. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held that the court does not assess the pre-trial statement as autonomous evidence, but the outcome of the comparison made at trial. What matters is the explanation given by the witness, assessed with immediacy.
Distinction from article 730. Article 714 operates where the witness appears and gives contradictory evidence; article 730 allows reading where the statement cannot be reproduced for reasons beyond the parties’ control. Confusing the two routes vitiates the admission of the evidence.
Application to the defendant. Despite the wording, case law accepts its application to the defendant’s statements, subject to the right to silence: silence at trial does not, on the prevailing view, allow the investigation statement to be read out under article 714.
The article 416 exemption. Where a related witness invokes the exemption from testifying at trial, case law excludes the reading of the pre-trial statement, a position reinforced by the reform introduced by Organic Act 8/2021 concerning child victims.
Necessity of the explanation. Omission of the invitation to clarify the contradiction prevents the previous statement from being treated as admitted. The defence should record its objection in order to preserve the ground of appeal.
Defence strategy
Use the provision actively. Reading the pre-trial statement is also a defence tool where a prosecution witness hardens his account at trial. The page and the contradictory passage should be identified precisely.
Insist on the explanation step. It should be expressly requested that the presiding judge invite the witness to explain the contradiction and that the answer be captured in the recording.
Oppose improper reading. Where there is no substantial contradiction, or where the pre-trial statement is defective in its safeguards, the reading should be opposed and the objection recorded.
Invoke the article 416 exemption. If a related witness invokes the exemption, any attempt to introduce the previous statement should be opposed, whether under article 714 or article 730.
Prepare the ground of appeal. Reliance on a pre-trial statement not subjected to adversarial examination at trial is a ground of appeal and of cassation for breach of article 24.2 of the Constitution.
Defence in this area
If you or your company are facing proceedings in this area, the firm provides defence and prosecution in Alicante and Madrid, with 24-hour assistance to detained persons.
Are you under investigation or facing charges in Spain? Société Juridique acts for foreign nationals throughout Spain, with offices in Alicante and Madrid and a 24-hour custody line. +34 669 30 21 13 or enquire online.
- Spanish Criminal Code by article
- Criminal Procedure Act by article
- Practical defence guides
- Contact the firm
This page is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of any provision depends on the circumstances of the case and requires review of the file by a lawyer. The English rendering of the legal text is unofficial.
Last reviewed: 21 September 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Can what was said before the investigating judge be read out at trial?
Yes, where the witness’s evidence at trial is not substantially consistent with the statement made during the investigation. Any party may request the reading under article 714.
What weight does the statement read out carry?
It is not assessed autonomously. The court appraises the outcome of the comparison and, in particular, the explanation the witness gives at trial about the contradiction.
Does it apply to the defendant’s statements?
Case law accepts this, subject to the right to silence. Silence at trial does not, on the prevailing view, allow the investigation statement to be read out.
What if the witness invokes the exemption from testifying?
Case law then excludes the reading of the pre-trial statement, since allowing it would empty the article 416 exemption of content.
What if no invitation to explain is given?
The step is essential. Its omission prevents the previous statement from being treated as admitted and may found an appeal, provided the defence recorded its objection.
Paseo De La Castellana 216 8º 28046 Madrid
Alicante – Playa de San Juan Av. Ansaldo 31, local 16, 03540 Alicante
London: 20 Wenlock Road, N1 7GU, United Kingdom
Paris: 72 Faubourg St Honoré, 75008, France
info@societejuridique.com
SERVICES
LINKS
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert is a law firm with offices in Madrid, Alicante, London and Paris, specialising in criminal law, technology law and economic and corporate crime. We provide strategic guidance in complex criminal proceedings, intellectual property and technological resources for legal decision-making with advanced forensic analysis. Our multidisciplinary team combines legal experience, legal intelligence and personal attention to deliver effective solutions adapted to each case. Legal assistance available 24 hours a day and online consultations.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
Where we act: Alicante·Madrid·Elche·Torrevieja·Orihuela·Benidorm·Alcoy·San Vicente·Elda·Denia·Villajoyosa·Villena·Novelda·Ibi·All locations
Defence by offence: Drink driving·Robbery and theft·Assault·Sexual offences·Threats·Squatting·Homicide·Criminal records