The Audiencia Provincial de Madrid has ruled that Begoña Gómez, spouse of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, will face trial before a jury of nine citizens and two alternates. Investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado of Madrid’s Court of Investigation No. 41 issued the order opening oral proceedings on 21 September 2026. The case concerns alleged embezzlement of public funds and influence peddling. In July, the court narrowed the proceedings, removing two allegations from the broader investigation. The jury will not consider every offence initially under investigation.
The trial date has not been set, and proceedings are not expected to begin before 2027. The Audiencia Provincial must first receive and assign the case, then designate the professional judge who will preside. Under Spain’s jury system, lay jurors determine the facts and return a verdict; the presiding judge directs the proceedings and imposes any sentence required by law. Opening a trial does not amount to a finding of guilt. Gómez remains presumed innocent unless and until a final judgment establishes otherwise.
The parties hold sharply different positions. The Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Madrid has sought acquittal for Gómez and her former Moncloa adviser, Cristina Álvarez, arguing that the alleged conduct does not constitute a criminal offence. Popular accusations, by contrast, have reportedly requested prison terms of 13 years for Gómez and six years for Álvarez. These are requests by the accusing parties, not sentences imposed by a court.
The debate over Spain’s jury system is longstanding. Since the introduction of Organic Law 5/1995 on the Jury Court, the legal community has remained divided. Supporters see the jury as a democratic institution impressive to modern justice, while critics consider it ill-suited to cases involving intricate legal or financial matters. In Spain’s hybrid model, jurors determine facts and issue a verdict, while the professional judge remains responsible for sentencing.
Concerns about jurors’ ability to assess technically complex allegations, including embezzlement and influence peddling, have persisted since the law’s inception. The list of offences eligible for jury trial includes crimes whose facts may require close examination of financial or institutional records. Critics say this can make it harder for lay jurors to reach fully informed verdicts. The judge’s role in directing the trial provides a formal structure for the proceedings.
Jury selection remains another concern. Extensive media coverage and public debate can make it difficult to find impartial candidates. The law allows the parties to challenge a limited number of prospective jurors without stating a cause. Dolores Vázquez, convicted by a jury in the high-profile Wanninkhof murder before being exonerated, is often cited in discussions about media influence and the safeguards needed to protect impartiality.
Despite these concerns, some legal experts say jurors take their responsibilities seriously once sworn in. The oath emphasizes impartiality and confidentiality, underscoring the gravity of the role. Spain reintroduced its jury system in 1995 after suspending it during the Franco era. Unlike in the United States, defendants in Spain cannot opt out of a jury trial in favour of a professional judge when the alleged offence falls within the jury court’s jurisdiction.
Data attributed to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) puts jury trials at 0.075% of verdicts in 2024. Of jury verdicts, 89.7% resulted in convictions, a figure largely attributed to homicide cases. Calls for reform continue, including proposals to broaden or narrow the list of jury-eligible offences and calls for a wider overhaul of the law. As the Gómez case moves through the preparatory stages, debate over democratic participation and legal expertise, including the proper limits of jury trials, is likely to remain in focus.
