Mexico Court Upholds Jurist but Scolds Her

An appeals court scolded a judge Monday for comparing the accused killer of an American executive to Robin Hood but upheld the jurist’s decision to dismiss the charges for lack of clear evidence.

The Jan. 2 order from Maria Claudia Campuzano, a lower court judge, releasing the gang of five suspects angered the U.S. State Department and provoked a storm of criticism in Mexico, prompting an urgent review of her decision.

The three-judge appeals panel, in a 396-page finding, confirmed her basic conclusion that prosecutors’ evidence, which included confessions extracted from the gang members, was riddled with contradictions and irregularities.

Real estate executive Peter John Zarate, 40, a Santa Ana native, was killed Dec. 15 in the capital by bandits who, officials say, burst into his taxi after jumping out of a tailing car.

Informing reporters of the judicial panel’s findings, Appellate Judge Maurilio Dominguez Cruz said, “We detailed various contradictions in the evidence, including the fact that forensic specialists analyzed and discredited some of the evidence found at the scene.”

But Dominguez Cruz added that the appellate panel had warned Campuzano because she had used “words or symbols that could distort the correct function of a judge”--a reference to her describing key suspect Alfonzo Gonzalez Sanchez, a.k.a. “El Chucky,” as a kind of modern-day Robin Hood who was generous with his cohorts and kept none of the spoils for himself.

Campuzano had said earlier that her Robin Hood comment was sarcasm and that the real issue was the shoddy investigation. She said she had no alternative under Mexican law but to drop the charges.