Due to a disagreement between the family, the lawyer of Fofo Marquez decided to leave the influencer case.
It is indeed worth remembering that last week a hearing was held in the courts of Tlalnepantla in which rodolfo “N” rejected the abbreviated agreement that the authorities proposed.
This agreement consisted of pleading guilty with the lowest penalty, but the influencer rejected it and now the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Mexico (SLEEP) seeks a sentence of up to 48 years in prison for the alleged crime of attempted feminicide.
However, Erik Rauda -now Fofo Márquez’s former lawyer- shared on his channel youtube a video in which he indicated that he will no longer represent the influencer due to having a disagreement with the family.
You might be interested in: Fire is recorded in the effluent area of the Salina cruz refinery
Rauda was in charge of defending Fofo Márquez since April when the tiktoker allegedly hit Edith “N” in the parking lot after a road accident.
Disagreement in strategy between lawyer and Fofo Márquez’s family
Erik Rauda indicated that the reason for his separation in the case was due to strategic differences in the approach he intended to give to his client’s legal process, something that the defendant’s family did not agree with.
The strategy was to focus the case on the federal justice instead of continuing through the judicial system of the State of mexico, this according to the lawyer who even presented an amparo for the case to be transferred to the federal level.
however,the family of Rodolfo “N” did not agree with said strategy even and when Rauda explained to them that the protection presented would seek to stop the case from attempted feminicide and change to qualifying injuries but could only move forward if the case went to the federal level.
“This amparo was going to analyze the basic issue of this matter, whether it corresponded to attempted feminicide or whether it corresponded to qualified injuries, that for me was important because I believe that in the initial investigation and also in the complementary one, nothing was contributed that was relevant. or important to take it to trial,” commented the lawyer.
You might be interested in: VIDEOS: Subject hits older adults and runs over people in Colima
rauda pointed out that by mutual agreement, both parties decided to end the relationship.
What I have to say in relation to the case of “Fofo” Márquez pic.twitter.com/75ID9ovmAQ
— Erik Rauda (@Erik_Rauda) November 26, 2024
LEO
Related
how does public perception of influencers like Fofo Marquez impact legal strategies in ongoing cases?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Fofo Marquez Case
Host: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re diving into a topic that has captured the attention of many: the ongoing legal battles involving social media influencer Fofo Marquez. To shed light on the intricate legal dynamics at play, we have with us renowned legal expert, Dr.Laura Mancera. Welcome, Laura!
Dr.Mancera: Thank you for having me! I’m excited to discuss this riveting case.
Host: Let’s start by addressing the recent progress where fofo Marquez’s lawyer decided to step away from the case. What does this signify in the context of legal portrayal?
Dr. Mancera: This departure is quite telling. In legal disputes,especially those involving media figures,the relationship between client and lawyer can be paramount. If a lawyer feels compelled to leave due to disagreements—likely among family members—it suggests that the internal dynamics are fracturing, which can complicate the case further.
Host: That’s an interesting perspective. We saw that just last week, there was a hearing in Tlalnepantla where Rodolfo “N” rejected the proposed abbreviated agreement by the authorities. What does rejecting such an agreement typically indicate?
Dr. Mancera: Rejecting an abbreviated agreement can imply several things. Often, it signifies that the individual believes they can mount a stronger defense or that they may wont to pursue a different legal strategy. It can also suggest a lack of trust in the legal process or perhaps a desire to avoid a plea deal that could carry notable consequences.
Host: so, would you say that Rodolfo “N” is taking a significant risk by rejecting this agreement?
Dr. mancera: Absolutely, it’s a double-edged sword. While rejecting a plea can sometimes result in better outcomes, it also exposes one to the full extent of the prosecution’s case. If they lose in court, the sanctions can be much harsher than what was initially offered in the plea.
Host: Moving back to Fofo Marquez’s situation—how might the public perception of the influencer affect the legal proceedings?
Dr. Mancera: Public perception plays a vital role in high-profile cases. Influencers like Fofo often have significant media attention, which can influence juror opinions and even the legal strategies employed by both the defense and prosecution. Sometimes, a lawyer might even seek to mitigate this by carefully managing public relations alongside legal strategy.
Host: It seems the intertwining of media and law is more complicated than one might expect. What advice would you give families embroiled in such disputes, especially when disagreements arise among them during legal proceedings?
Dr. Mancera: Interaction is key. It’s crucial for families to discuss their views and feelings openly and to consult with trustworthy legal advisors who have their best interests at heart. Additionally, seeking mediation may also help in resolving internal conflicts without escalating to a public legal spectacle.
Host: Great advice, Laura! As this case unfolds, we’ll undoubtedly see more developments.Thank you for providing insight into the complexities surrounding Fofo Marquez and Rodolfo “N.” We hope to have you back again soon as things progress.
Dr. Mancera: Thank you! I look forward to it.
Host: And thank you to our audience for tuning in to this episode of time.news. Stay informed and engaged—we’ll bring you more updates on this case as it develops!