Updated to LO 1/2026 and LO 1/2025 · Reviewed July 2026 · Author: Francisco Javier Martín Porras, criminal lawyer and court expert · SCJE team
In homicides, bribery or breaking-and-entering cases, the one who decides guilt is not a professional judge but nine citizens. The jury procedure has its own rules (reinforced investigation, preliminary hearing, object of the verdict) and its own art: convincing lay people requires another way of examining, of presenting expert evidence and of closing. We litigate before juries with a specific method, and we comment on it here together with its procedural channel.
In brief. In brief. Fixed jurisdiction: homicide, threats, breaking and entering, fires, bribery, embezzlement and others (art. 1 LO 5/1995). Nine jurors and a presiding judge who directs and drafts the judgment. The object of the verdict is voted fact by fact: 7 votes for unfavourable facts, 5 for favourable ones. The judgment is appealed before the High Court of Justice and from there in cassation: real double review.
The jury court hears, among others, consummated homicide and murder, conditional threats, failure in the duty of assistance, breaking and entering, forest fires, bribery, influence peddling and embezzlement (art. 1 LO 5/1995). Its procedure has its own rules: a reinforced investigation with an initial imputation appearance, a preliminary hearing that acts as an additional filter, the constitution of the jury with challenges, the object of the verdict voted fact by fact with 7 votes for unfavourable facts and 5 for favourable ones, and a judgment drafted by the presiding judge that is appealed before the High Court of Justice and later in cassation.
Our jury method: selection of jurors with professional criteria at the constitution; litigation for lay people with a clear account, visual chronology and comprehensible expert evidence; challenge of the object of the verdict when questions are suggestive or incomplete; and the request for early dissolution of the jury for insufficiency of prosecution evidence (art. 49), the functional equivalent of a technical acquittal.
| Stage | Legal basis | Content | Defence opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Art. 1 LO 5/1995 | Homicide, threats, breaking and entering, fires, bribery, embezzlement | Fighting the forum changes the audience of the trial |
| Investigation | Arts. 24 to 32 LO 5/1995 | Imputation appearance and specification of the facts | Reinforced safeguards absent in the abbreviated procedure |
| Preliminary hearing | Arts. 30 to 37 LO 5/1995 | Adversarial filter before the opening of the trial | Dismissals before trial exist and are worked for |
| Constitution of the jury | Arts. 38 to 40 LO 5/1995 | Draw, questioning and four peremptory challenges per party | Selection with professional criteria; waiving it is losing |
| Dissolution | Art. 49 LO 5/1995 | Requested when no prosecution evidence can found a conviction | The functional equivalent of a technical acquittal |
| Object of the verdict | Art. 52 LO 5/1995 | List of facts to vote, discussed with the parties | Suggestive or incomplete questions found entire appeals |
| Deliberation and verdict | Arts. 54 to 61 LO 5/1995 | Secret; 7 votes for unfavourable facts, 5 for favourable; reasoned | Unreasoned verdicts are the first cause of nullity |
| Judgment and appeals | Arts. 67 to 70 LO 5/1995 | Judgment in accordance with the verdict; appeal to the High Court and cassation | The appeal is built during the hearing, protest by protest |
Summary drawn from the Spanish source page for orientation purposes. The applicable provisions are those in force at the relevant time; each case requires individual analysis by a criminal lawyer.
Original commentary by the firm, checked against the reference work in our library: Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal Comentada, Lefebvre-El Derecho, 13th edition, May 2026, and the courtroom-practice manual of La Ley in our collection. The jury is more permeable to immediacy, empathy and clarity, and more demanding with direct evidence: the theory of the case decides where and how to litigate.
Homicide, breaking and entering, bribery or embezzlement mean nine citizens decide guilt. The theory of the case, the account and the expert evidence must be designed for lay people.
Cases with a strong technical or complex circumstantial load are usually better litigated before professional courts; cases with a powerful human account, before a jury. When the qualification allows disputing jurisdiction, that dispute is strategic.
Verdicts with insufficient reasoning or a badly drafted object are annulled with relative frequency on appeal before the High Court, forcing a retrial with another jury. The record and protest technique during the trial opens those doors.
It is a remunerated civic duty with fixed grounds of excuse, raised within the time limit of the summons. Whoever sits decides only according to the evidence seen at trial.
Speak to a criminal lawyer
Criminal defence in English before the courts of Alicante and the rest of Spain, for residents and for visitors who have flown home.
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert es un despacho de abogados con sedes en Madrid, Alicante, Londres y París, especializado en defensa y acusación penal, delitos económicos y corporativos y derecho tecnológico. Trabajamos con orientación estratégica en procedimientos penales complejos, propiedad intelectual y análisis forense avanzado, y prestamos consultoría jurídica, compliance y escudos de protección a particulares y empresas. Atendemos desde Alicante y Madrid, con consulta online en toda España y asistencia al detenido 24 horas. Resuelva sus dudas en las preguntas frecuentes o solicite una primera consulta.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
