SCJN refuses to appeal Fofo Márquez's amparo; influencer will continue conviction for attempted femicide

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has rejected the request to take up the amparo petition filed by influencer Rodolfo Márquez, known as "Fofo Márquez," who sought to annul his 17-year and six-month prison sentence for attempted femicide. The case stems from an incident in February 2024 when Márquez allegedly attacked Edith "N" in the parking lot of a commercial mall in Naucalpan. This decision marks a significant legal milestone, as it confirms that the highest judicial authority in Mexico will not intervene in this specific case.

The Second Collegiate Court in Penal Matters of the Second Circuit had requested the Supreme Court to consider taking on the case to establish guidelines for judges to determine whether a violent attack against a woman constitutes an attempt at femicide. During the court session, the secretary general of agreements informed the president judge, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, that there was a majority vote to refrain from exercising the power of attraction. As a result, the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal, leaving Márquez's conviction intact.

Rodolfo Márquez faced charges after the alleged assault on Edith "N." On January 24, 2025, he was found guilty of attempted femicide, and on January 29 of the same year, he received a sentence of 17 years and six months in prison, along with a fine exceeding 277,000 pesos. The incident occurred in a public space, drawing attention due to both the nature of the crime and the high-profile status of the accused.

The rejection of the amparo petition means that Márquez must serve his sentence without further legal challenges before the Supreme Court. The case highlights ongoing discussions within the Mexican judiciary about how to define and handle cases involving gender-based violence. While some legal experts argue that the criteria for determining attempted femicide need clearer definitions, others believe that the current legal framework provides sufficient guidance for lower courts.

The incident itself took place in a commercial area, which raised concerns about public safety and the prevalence of such crimes in urban settings. Edith "N" reportedly suffered serious injuries during the attack, though the exact nature of the injuries has not been disclosed publicly. The prosecution emphasized the severity of the act, arguing that it met the legal threshold for attempted femicide, a charge that carries significant penalties under Mexican law.

Legal analysts have noted that the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case could set a precedent for future appeals related to similar offenses. By declining to exercise its power of attraction, the court leaves it to lower courts to interpret and apply the existing legal standards regarding femicide attempts. This approach underscores the importance of consistent application of laws across different jurisdictions.

In response to the ruling, legal representatives for Márquez have indicated they may explore other avenues for challenging the conviction, although no immediate plans have been announced. Meanwhile, advocates for victims of gender-based violence have expressed relief that the conviction stands, emphasizing the importance of holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. They argue that such decisions reinforce the message that violent acts against women will not go unpunished.

Looking ahead, the case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future. Legal scholars suggest that while the Supreme Court chose not to intervene in this instance, it does not preclude the possibility of revisiting the issue if new arguments or evidence emerge. For now, however, the focus remains on ensuring that justice is served for Edith "N" and that the legal system continues to address the complexities surrounding gender-based violence effectively.