Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: Hoy por Hoy
Host: Àngels Barceló (SER Podcast)
Date: November 26, 2025
Episode Title: Tres jueces del Supremo que condenaron al fiscal general dieron tras el juicio un curso pagado por una de las acusaciones

Episode Overview

This episode breaks an exclusive story about a significant potential conflict of interest in the Spanish legal system. It discusses how three Supreme Court judges, who recently condemned the former Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, subsequently gave a paid course organized by the Madrid Bar Association—a party that had acted as an accusation in the same trial. The episode scrutinizes the legal and ethical implications of this sequence of events, while providing new information on the courtroom dynamics and timing.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Details of the Supreme Court Case and Sentencing

• The Supreme Court found the former Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, guilty, but as of the broadcast (six days after the verdict), the complete sentence and its justifications had not been published.
• The Madrid Bar Association, one of the "accusaciones" (accusing parties), played a key role in the prosecution.

2. The Judges’ Participation in the Course

• Three of the judges from the Supreme Court tribunal—Antonio del Moral, Andrés Martínez Arrieta (president), and Juan Ramón Verdugo—participated in a teaching course at the Madrid Bar Association on the subject of “casación en el turno de oficio” (appeal in duty shift cases).
• The course was run during the active deliberation of a "historic sentence."

Quote:
"En plena deliberación, además de esta sentencia cuyos detalles todavía no conocemos…"
(Pedro Jiménez, 00:39)

3. Norms Around Judges and Professional Courses

• It's normal for judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and other legal operators to participate in courses organized by professional colleges. These activities generally don’t require authorization from the Judicial Council nor declaration of earning.
• However, the unusual aspect is the timing—participation coincided with deliberations on a verdict where the organizing body (Madrid Bar Association) was an active party.

Quote:
"Lo que es más difícil de entender, Ángel, es que en este caso, esta edición en el Colegio de Abogados de Madrid ha empezado, como te decía, en plena deliberación de una sentencia histórica que condena a Álvaro García Ortiz."
(Pedro Jiménez, 01:23)

4. Key Revelation: A Recording of Judge Martínez Arrieta

• Breaking News Segment: A new audio clip (released by Televisión Española and accessed by Cadena SER) from the end of Judge Martínez Arrieta’s class shows a remarkable slip, apparently alluding to his urgent need to finish sentencing the Attorney General.

Memorable Moment & Quote:
“Y con esto, señores, concluyo porque tengo que poner la sentencia del fiscal general.”
(Andrés Martínez Arrieta, relayed by Pedro Jiménez, ~02:10)

5. Implications of the Timeline

• The episode emphasizes that as of November 18, the class, in which the quote was made, took place before public knowledge of a crucial shift in sentencing responsibility: The original magistrate (Susana Polo), who reportedly wanted to acquit García Ortiz, was replaced by Martínez Arrieta (who ultimately favored condemnation).
• This timing suggests that Judge Martínez Arrieta was already aware of the change—a potential sign of procedural transparency or, conversely, of inappropriately close relations with an interested party.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Àngels Barceló (host):
  “Tres de los jueces que condenaron al Fiscal general del Estado después del juicio impartieron un curso pagado por una de las acusaciones.” (00:08)
• Pedro Jiménez:
  “En plena deliberación, además de esta sentencia cuyos detalles todavía no conocemos…” (00:39)
• Pedro Jiménez on legal standards:
  “No hay que pedir la compatibilidad al Consejo del Poder Judicial para ejercer la docencia…” (00:44)
• Pedro Jiménez highlighting the anomaly:
  “Lo que es más difícil de entender, Ángel, es que en este caso… esta edición en el Colegio de Abogados de Madrid ha empezado, como te decía, en plena deliberación…” (01:23)
• Judge Andrés Martínez Arrieta (audio recording):
  “Y con esto, señores, concluyo porque tengo que poner la sentencia del fiscal general.” (~02:10, as reported by Pedro Jiménez)

Important Timestamps

• 00:00–00:39: Introduction to the breaking news and initial background
• 00:39–01:23: Pedro Jiménez explains typical judicial participation in legal courses
• 01:23–02:15: Focuses on the timing, ethical concerns, and newsworthy revelation regarding the audio recording

Analysis and Tone

The episode maintains the investigative and incisive tone characteristic of Hoy por Hoy. Reporters present facts clearly, but draw attention to troubling ethical scenarios, prompting listeners to consider implications for judicial transparency and public trust.

Conclusion

This edition of Hoy por Hoy exposes a possible conflict of interest—or at the very least, an ethical gray area—within the upper echelons of Spain’s legal system, centered on the intersection of judicial deliberation and public educational activities funded by an interested party. The release of Judge Martínez Arrieta’s recorded comments, right amid the sentence deliberations, raises questions about procedure, impartiality, and the overlap between legal professionalism and judicial duty.

Listeners come away with a nuanced, well-documented picture of a developing controversy at the heart of Spain’s justice system.