“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

the parties and the public, with each party having the opportunity to strike four. Once
empanelled, this initial jury reviewed the evidence and issued a public proclamation as to
whether there were grounds for a full trial. 77
If a simple majority of the preliminary jury ruled that the trial could proceed, the
judge then conducted a second sort for a new seven-man jury. Before the trial, the juez de
crimen collected all copies of the offending publication available. The parties then appeared
in front of a jury for a public hearing. Each witness could present evidence, question
witnesses and “make statements regarding the merits” of the case. Following the conclusion
of these oral presentations, the jury entered deliberations. Once the jury reached a verdict,
again by a simple majority vote, the court’s public notary was required to read the full verdict
publicly. If convicted, the defendant had the right to request a third jury to review the case,
again in a public proceeding. The final jury’s verdict in the matter, however, could not be
appealed. In short, local juries had the definitive say in juicios de imprenta. 78
The intensely local and public nature of juicios de imprenta made them fertile grounds
for factional rivals to challenge the personal reputations of their enemies. At the same time,
these cases provided a public stage for prominent vecinos to manifest their ability to obtain
justice, protect their reputation and even enhance their status in the eyes of the local public.
The stakes in these conflicts were high. The outcome reflected the ability of local networks
to appear on behalf of honorable vecinos in order to protect their legal rights and commercial
reputations. In this way, defamation cases combined issues of private legal rights with
notions of public accountability, with local factional elites serving as the gatekeeper between
those spheres.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
185