The same way any appeal is decided:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts"
"Appealing a judgment on legal grounds means that the error in the judgment resulted from a problem with the law related to the case".
A Supreme Ccourt review in a trial involving a jury (deemed to have already given added validity to the ascertainment of facts, *cough* ) does seem to be only on points of law.
ETA: one sentence in that is that it could have included what was assumed as "rules of common experience" (unless I've misunderstood it).
I'm not sure how that works in practice as it is facts that can be elastically ruled to be of common experience (therefore judgement on facts). And there were loads of these in this case...
7 - Ao contrário do que sucede com o acórdão final do tribunal colectivo, de que se pode recorrer quanto à matéria de facto para o tribunal da relação com apelo às provas documentadas em suporte áudio ou vídeo, quando intervém o tribunal de Júri o recurso dirige-se directamente ao STJ e visa exclusivamente o reexame da matéria de direito, sem prejuízo de se invocar algum dos vícios a que aludem os n.ºs 2 e 3 do art.º 410.º, "desde que o vício (no caso do n.º 2) resulte do texto da decisão recorrida, por si só ou conjugada com as regras da experiência comum".
8 - Entendeu o legislador que a intervenção do Júri dá maiores garantias de fidedignidade na fixação da matéria de facto, pelo que restringiu o direito ao recurso nessa parte.Amongst Luz's many claims was the assertion that jury trials do not exist in PT. This isn't accurate. They are an option for trials involving a potential sentence of 8 years or more, but a party has to request it.
The defence did not want a jury trial. I find that to be understandable in view of the potential influence of the pre-trial (clearly PJ-biased) coverage.
If that is correct, then it must have been the prosecution that requested one.... one might wonder why.
