Begoña Gómez Jury Trial: Charges & Why Jury May Be Her Best Ally

Have you been charged with a crime against Public Administration?

On April 11, 2026, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado García issued a court order in procedure TJU 1146/2024 ordering the continuation of criminal proceedings against María Begoña Gómez Fernández, María Cristina Álvarez Rodríguez and Juan Carlos Barrabés Cónsul before the Jury Court. Four charges remain active: influence peddling, embezzlement of public funds, business corruption and misappropriation. Only the charge of professional intrusion has been dismissed.

Much media noise, few legal explanations. This article analyzes the court order, explains why the Prosecutor requested dismissal and why the Judge decided to continue, breaks down each charged offense and raises a reflection that, paradoxically, may prove favorable for the main defendant.

Why has the Jury Court trial of the Begoña Gómez case been ordered?

Before addressing the specific crimes, it is important to understand why the procedure follows the procedures of Organic Law 5/1995 on Jury Courts (LOTJ) and not those of an ordinary criminal procedure before the Provincial Court.

Catalog of crimes under Jury Court jurisdiction

The LOTJ establishes in its article 1 a closed catalog of crimes whose prosecution falls under Jury Court jurisdiction. Among them are expressly included influence peddling (arts. 428 to 430 CP) and embezzlement of public funds (arts. 432 to 434 CP). As soon as any of these crimes appears in the case, the procedure is automatically transformed to conform to the LOTJ.

Court jurisdiction over related crimes

However, in this matter not only are

Do you need a criminal defense attorney expert in economic crimes?

What are the crimes for which oral trial against Begoña Gómez is sought?

Crime of influence peddling

Influence peddling is codified in articles 428, 429 and 430 of the Criminal Code with three different modalities. Article 428 sanctions the authority or official who influences another by taking advantage of their position or a personal relationship. Article 429 punishes the private individual who exercises that same influence by taking advantage of a personal relationship with the official who must decide. Article 430 sanctions whoever offers to perform such conduct in exchange for remuneration or accepts an offer in that regard.

What case law requires in all cases is efficient moral pressure on whoever must decide, not a mere suggestion or simple friendship. There must exist an objective situation of taking advantage that is exploited to condition the public decision-making process, and that influence must be oriented toward obtaining a resolution that generates an economic benefit, direct or indirect, for the perpetrator or a third party.

The evidence that the Judge considers credible includes the meeting of Begoña Gómez with the UCM Rector at La Moncloa, the statements of Vice-Rector Doadrio about the instruction to «create a chair for the President’s wife,» the speed of processing without verifying the defendant’s qualifications, and the letters of support for the UTE Barrabés/The Valley signed coinciding temporally with the other defendant’s meetings at the presidential complex.

If you have been charged or investigated for influence peddling, consult as soon as possible with a criminal defense attorney expert in crimes against Public Administration. The boundary between typically punishable influence and legitimate management of interests is technically complex, and the nuances marked by Supreme Court jurisprudence are determinant for the defense.

Crime of

Are you facing a Jury Court procedure?

A reflection no one is making: the Jury Court may be the best scenario for Begoña Gómez

The LOTJ was approved in 1995, at the height of the PP-PSOE two-party system, when Spain had a much more homogeneous political society than today. No one thought then about the polarization that would characterize Spanish public life three decades later.

Today that reality is radically different. Polarization is observable daily on social media, in polls and in electoral results. Before any matter that touches on politics, citizens divide deeply and, in many cases, immovably, regardless of the facts.

Well: that jury of nine people is obtained by lottery among the residents of the province of Madrid. There is no ideological filter. Nine citizens chosen at random from the Madrid census, with all the political opinions that exist in this city, will sit to deliberate and vote on the guilt of the President of the Government’s wife.

The question that inevitably arises is this: in such a polarized society, is it realistic to expect that the nine jurors will reach the seven votes necessary to convict Begoña Gómez Fernández? Is it not reasonably probable that at least three of the nine citizens will arrive at deliberation with a firm conviction in favor of her innocence, regardless of what the evidence presented at oral trial says?

This is not about judging whether that conviction would be correct or incorrect. It is about recognizing a sociological fact: the existing political division makes achieving seven condemnatory votes in a popular jury on a matter so loaded with political connotations a difficult undertaking. Three votes out of nine are enough to block the conviction. And in the Madrid of 2026, finding three people among nine who consider the defendant innocent does not seem statistically unreasonable.

The paradox is that