Criminal Defence with Media Accompaniment in Imputation

When an imputation affects a public figure —business, artistic, sports, political—, criminal defense is fought in two simultaneous courts: the investigative court and public opinion. A procedural victory may be irrelevant if the client's reputation is destroyed during the process. Media accompaniment is the discipline that coordinates both dimensions to preserve both freedom and reputation.

Dual Front: Court and Public Opinion

The judicial process unfolds in court, but the reputational battle is fought in the media and on social networks, and it does so with completely different rules, timing and standards of proof. In court the presumption of innocence applies; in public opinion, frequently, an inverse presumption. A procedural victory that arrives months or years later does not by itself repair the damage caused by adverse coverage in the first hours. This is why media accompaniment starts from one premise: both fronts are real, neither can be neglected, and what is gained on one may be lost on the other if they are not managed jointly.

Coordinated Communication Strategy

Criminal strategy and communication strategy must not be managed in silos: they may contradict each other and produce cross damage. What is effective is a single crisis cabinet where the lead criminal lawyer directs and the communications consultancy executes within the framework the former sets. Every public statement must be reviewed by criminal defense before its emission, because an unfortunate phrase may become an admission or contradict the line of defense. The general rule is prudence: in many cases the most advisable message is respectful silence toward the process, reserving the public response for the moments when it adds value.

Sumarial Secrecy and Leaks

Sumarial secrecy leakage is a constant in media cases. Its treatment requires dual response: (1) defensive, as leaked facts will be used by media; and (2) offensive, through complaint for revelation of secrets (Art. 466 CP) against the institutional responsible, whether civil servant, member of police forces or professional with access to the file. The revelation by a public official of information from the file is punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 4 years, which makes the offensive action not only a means of redress, but a deterrent message against further leaks.

Response Against Erroneous Information

Against a publication with inaccurate factual data, the first tool is the right of rectification, which the law allows to be exercised within a short period —of the order of seven days— to correct the erroneous information with equivalent dissemination. Its effectiveness depends on speed: a response protocol with pre-established procedures allows reaction in hours, not days. Not all uncomfortable information is rectifiable —the right to information protects the truthful dissemination of facts of public relevance—, so each publication is analyzed to distinguish the correctable factual error from legitimate criticism, and the proportionate response is chosen in each case.

Parallel Civil and Criminal Actions

When the coverage exceeds the limits of the right to information, two cumulative avenues open. On the criminal plane, the complaint for slander or libel (public attribution of an offense with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth), punishable by imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years or a fine, and the aforementioned action for revelation of secrets. On the civil plane, the action of LO 1/1982 on the protection of honor, privacy and one's own image, which allows the cessation of the intrusion and compensation for the damage caused. The choice and timing of these actions are weighed carefully: sometimes it is preferable to wait for the main criminal process to advance so as not to fuel the media focus.

Trial by media and the presumption of innocence (Art. 24 CE)

The presumption of innocence (Art. 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution) does not operate only inside the courtroom: it protects the person under investigation from an anticipated conviction in the public arena. A so-called parallel trial occurs when the media, social networks or interested third parties build a narrative of guilt before any final judgment exists, effectively reversing the burden of proof in social perception. The harm is real even if the case ends in dismissal or acquittal, because reputational repair always arrives late compared with the initial coverage.

Media accompaniment does not mean litigating the case in the press, but preserving the right to a trial with full safeguards. The legal strategy sets the tempo: what is said, when and by whom must be consistent with the procedural defence and must not compromise ongoing investigative steps. A hasty public intervention can lock in a version that later narrows the defence's technical room for manoeuvre.

Against trial by media, the legitimate response is to recall the constitutional principle, demand respect for the presumption of innocence and, where appropriate, exercise civil actions or the right of reply. This is not about silencing the press, but about balancing public debate with the fundamental rights of someone who has not yet been judged.

Secrecy of the proceedings and leaks (Art. 301 LECrim)

The investigation file (sumario) is confidential and not public until the oral trial is opened (Art. 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act); in the abbreviated procedure, the preliminary proceedings are governed by the same rule. When the investigating judge additionally declares the proceedings secret, not even the parties may access the file during the period ordered. This reserve protects the effectiveness of the investigation and, indirectly, the honour and privacy of a person who has not yet been tried.

Article 301 LECrim itself provides for a disciplinary correction: lawyers or court agents who improperly reveal the content of the file may be fined between 500 and 10,000 euros, and the same fine reaches other non-official persons. Public officials who leak may, where applicable, incur the criminal liability set out in the Criminal Code. Knowing these rules allows an orderly response to a leak, documenting it and reporting it to the court.

Handling a leak calls for caution: feeding the controversy usually amplifies the harm. The appropriate route is to bring the fact to the investigating judge's attention, consider requesting the protection of personal data in public rulings, and reserve actions for the protection of honour and privacy for the right procedural moment, without waiving them.

Honour, privacy and image: protection against freedom of information (Art. 18 CE and LO 1/1982)

Article 18 of the Constitution guarantees honour, personal and family privacy and one's own image, developed by Organic Law 1/1982. These rights frequently collide with the freedoms of expression and information in Article 20 of the Constitution, whose express limit is precisely respect for them (Art. 20.4). No right is absolute: courts weigh each case individually, considering the truthfulness of the information, the public interest of the matter and the proportionality of how it is disseminated.

The public relevance of an office or activity widens the margin for criticism and reporting, but it authorises neither the disclosure of private-life data unrelated to the general interest nor untruthful imputations. Diligence in verifying information and the distinction between facts and opinions are decisive criteria. The defence can document excesses, demand they cease and, where an unlawful interference exists, bring the civil actions provided by LO 1/1982.

Alongside the judicial route there are tools such as the right of reply governed by Organic Law 2/1984, which allows the affected party to disseminate its own version of inaccurate and damaging facts. The choice between tolerating, replying or suing is strategic: each option has different effects on public exposure and must be weighed in light of the procedural moment and the harm actually caused.

Lawful reputation management and the confidentiality of the defence

Legitimate reputation management rests on verifiable facts and respect for procedural rules. It does not include pressuring witnesses, disseminating documents under reserve or constructing misleading narratives: such conduct, besides being ethically objectionable, can generate liability and turn against the defence itself. The aim is for the public message and the legal strategy to advance in alignment, never in conflict.

Confidentiality is the cornerstone. Every communication with the client is covered by professional secrecy and the lawyer-client relationship; preserving it requires clear protocols on what information leaves the firm, through which channel and with what authorisation. Coordination with communications advisers, where they exist, must be subordinated to the legal criterion so as not to compromise the secrecy of the proceedings or the procedural position.

In practice this translates into a single spokesperson and sober messages, anchored in the presumption of innocence and respect for the course of the procedure. It is advisable to avoid assessments of the substance of the evidence while the case is open and to reserve statements for specific procedural milestones. A reputation is better defended with sustained consistency and prudence than with impulsive reactions that an opponent can exploit.