Concepcion court leaves in agreement decision on judge investigated in corruption plot in penal system of Los Angeles
The Court of Appeals in Concepción has postponed its decision regarding the indictment against Judge Cherie Palomera Astroza of Los Angeles, who is under investigation for alleged corruption within the criminal justice system in Los Angeles. The case involves multiple institutions, including the Defender’s Office, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Judiciary, and is linked to organized crime. The court will announce its ruling on August 7. The prosecution from Ñuble has filed a 'capítulo' indictment, which would allow them to request precautionary measures if Palomera is formally charged. This follows a June ruling by the Constitutional Court rejecting a constitutional challenge from Palomera’s defense. The investigation, covering events between 2017 and 2024, is being conducted by the Economic Crimes Brigade of the National Police of Ñuble. Several individuals, including lawyer Susana Andrea Cortés Karmy, her husband Patricio Gutiérrez Marinado, and others, are implicated in various charges such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Some suspects are already in preventive detention.
The Chilean senator Miguel Ángel Calisto faces renewed scrutiny over allegations of financial misconduct involving approximately 105 million pesos, with prosecutors asserting they have gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with fraud and seek up to 12 years in prison. The case has taken a new turn following the reopening of the investigation, which has led to further developments regarding the role of his former advisor, Carla Graf. According to the regional prosecutor for Aysén, Hernán Libedinsky, the senator orchestrated a fraudulent scheme aimed at misappropriating funds intended for Congress. He claims that Calisto falsely claimed to have hired Graf, who allegedly performed no actual work, in order to benefit personally from the money. This accusation was supported by forensic analysis conducted by an expert, whose findings concluded that it was impossible for Graf’s reports to have been prepared under the circumstances described by the senator's defense. Libedinsky emphasized that despite the reopened inquiry, the evidence amassed so far remains robust and compelling. He stated that while the investigation continues to explore all possible angles, both to establish or exacerbate the accused’s responsibility and to identify factors that might mitigate or even exonerate them, the current body of information strongly supports the prosecution's stance. In response to the recent procedural changes, including the court’s decision to invalidate the review of the parliamentary immunity, Libedinsky clarified that although the senator initially refused to relinquish his parliamentary privileges, he later partially waived them to allow the judge to issue an arrest warrant. As a result, Calisto is currently outside the country and thus subject to judicial proceedings. The defense, however, argues that the prosecution acted hastily, claiming that the closure of the investigation was premature and that the defendant was caught off guard. They filed a request with the Constitutional Court seeking to challenge the legality of the process. In response, Libedinsky dismissed these claims, stating that there were no pending investigations at the time of the closure, and that the defense had ample opportunity to respond to prior testimonies, including those from Graf and another witness, without taking action beyond requesting copies of documents. He further suggested that the defense's move before the Constitutional Court aims to delay the process, gain more time, and prevent the case from proceeding to trial. According to Libedinsky, such efforts should be deemed inadmissible, as the timing of the investigation’s closure must adhere strictly to legal procedures rather than being dictated by the interests of one party. As the legal battle unfolds, both sides continue to present their arguments, with the outcome likely to hinge on the strength and admissibility of the evidence collected during the reopened investigation. The next steps will depend on how the courts rule on the procedural challenges raised by the defense and whether the prosecution can successfully proceed with its charges against the senator.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.
The Chilean senator Miguel Ángel Calisto faces an investigation into alleged fraud against the state treasury, with prosecutors claiming he orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving his advisor Carla Graf. The fiscal regional of Aysén, Hernán Libedinsky, asserts that Calisto falsely claimed Graf was hired by Congress funds without performing any work, aiming to benefit personally. While Calisto claims new investigations could undermine the fraud theory, prosecutors argue current evidence is strong and conclusive. The case involves legal procedures regarding parliamentary immunity and potential extradition, with defense alleging rushed closure of the investigation. Prosecutors maintain the process was appropriate and not premature.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the investigation as a clear-cut case of fraud, emphasizing the prosecutor's position and dismissing the possibility of alternative explanations. It highlights the strength of the evidence presented by the Ministry of Public Prosecution and portrays the defendant's claims as weak.
Why factuality (85): The article provides specific details about the investigation into Senator Calisto, including the alleged fraud amount ($105 million), the role of his advisor Carla Graf, and the involvement of Fiscal Libedinsky. These claims align with the general consensus found in other articles covering the same
Why objectivity (75): The article presents the case from the perspective of the prosecution, quoting Fiscal Libedinsky and emphasizing the 'convicción' of the Ministry Public. While it acknowledges the possibility of new information, the overall tone leans toward supporting the charges against Calisto, using phrases like
An investigation by economic crime investigators from the Coyhaique PDI revealed that it was materially impossible for Carla Graf, former advisor to Senator Miguel Ángel Calisto, to have prepared the reports she submitted during his fraud case against the state. These documents were presented four years after the initial investigations began by Graf’s lawyer, who represented her at the time. The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested a forensic examination of these documents, which became key evidence in the charges against Calisto. According to prosecutors, Calisto and Graf’s husband, Roland Cárcamo, fabricated evidence by falsely claiming the Congress had hired Graf for work she did not perform, allegedly to divert funds for personal gain. The defense argues that the PDI’s findings confirm that both Graf and Cárcamo falsified records to protect themselves, changing their statements and turning against Calisto. Calisto’s lawyer, César Ramos, claims that Graf and Cárcamo created fake documents with fabricated data and physical marks, proving they had no qualms about falsifying evidence.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the allegations against Calisto and Graf as part of a broader pattern of corruption and misuse of public resources, aligning with left-leaning narratives that emphasize accountability and transparency in politics. While the legal proceedings are reported factually, the emphasis on
The Court of Appeals in Concepción has postponed its decision regarding the indictment against Judge Cherie Palomera Astroza of Los Angeles, who is under investigation for alleged corruption within the criminal justice system in Los Angeles. The case involves multiple institutions, including the Defender’s Office, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Judiciary, and is linked to organized crime. The court will announce its ruling on August 7. The prosecution from Ñuble has filed a 'capítulo' indictment, which would allow them to request precautionary measures if Palomera is formally charged. This follows a June ruling by the Constitutional Court rejecting a constitutional challenge from Palomera’s defense. The investigation, covering events between 2017 and 2024, is being conducted by the Economic Crimes Brigade of the National Police of Ñuble. Several individuals, including lawyer Susana Andrea Cortés Karmy, her husband Patricio Gutiérrez Marinado, and others, are implicated in various charges such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Some suspects are already in preventive detention.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about legal proceedings involving judicial corruption and does not exhibit clear bias toward any political side. It reports on the ongoing investigation and legal actions taken by the prosecution without overtly favoring either the accused or the accusers. No
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
CL
