Hauptverhandlungstermin am 17. Oktober 2005 The trial began on time at 10 and ended after 16 clock clock, after the parties had agreed to hold talks to end until the next hearing (Wednesday, 10/19/2005, 10 Clock, Room E 104). The evidence, however, was not yet closed, there's a statement of the accused is to be read out. But first back to the beginning:
"dispute" was
this defense of the accused lawyer, in his final words with the falsification of the investigation file claimed. The police officer had written on 30.08.2003 POK T.
this report, on 27/01/2005 then on the same subject
brought this note to the file.
caused the contents of the letter defending the public prosecutor to draw up this indictment
.
to
process beginning on 06/07/2005 it was not yet the reading of the indictment, because the defense initially
requested that document , the attorney who drew up the indictment to replace it with another meeting representatives. This replacement request was then once again through this supplement
updated.
The proceedings were suspended to give the prosecutor the opportunity to submit comments, which he held with
this letter to the district court.
It happened to be
this decision of the district court, with the replacement request was rejected as expected.
Shortly before the appointment were all defenders one identical letter
Wording of the Chief Public Prosecutor, who refused the application for replacement of the prosecutor as well.
At the beginning of the trial the defense requested with that statement , not to read the indictment and the proceedings set by the Court because it has a grave mistake. This request was refused by decision. The decision conceded that the contents of the indictment was quite extensive and contains many unusual details. But as a defender but is known to have very many rights, the prosecution must also have very much content.
After reading the indictment, the defense gave in an opening statement their view on the background of the procedure and the sensitivity with respect to the free legal profession with clear terms of expression.
then began
evidence to the court of the former clients of the accused and and his wife were charged on four of its term use police officers involved.
The survey of former clients was temporarily on the issue of obstruction of justice sought by the defense lawyers "addition. However, the emerging suspicion was not confirmed.
After the wife was heard
T. policeman, who had written the above two reports, which reflected
same topics in two different variants . It concerned the question whether an instruction of the then accused of his (silent) or rights are (rightly) had been omitted.
the beginning of his interrogation nor friendly and relaxed occurring T. officials became increasingly restless, as the defender Rueber interviewed him at length. The judge admonished the witness several times to report only on his memory of facts
, but not about his assumptions and conclusions
("I always do so, so I will have done so even then "). At the request of defense counsel, who submitted the application to swearing in of witnesses in view, the judge instructed the police officers then even at length about the consequences of perjury. The witness looked tense and protested in a few details.
The other police officers in your testimony contributed to the less enlightenment. Remarkable however, was that as PK, who admitted when asked to have prepared himself by reading his own good reports on the trial, by the essential points (policy) could not remember. From a spectator was observed to have the witnesses T. and as before, exchanged intense during and after the lunch break on the examination of the witness T.. The four defense lawyers
have the impression that may have more on the result of evidence the prosecution allegation also from the viewpoint of the court have in relation to the fulfillment of the objective facts not stand. In any case appear the charge that the accused had also acted intentionally limited, no longer tenable. About the justifications (safeguarding legitimate interests) has not yet been spoken, but which is still made up.
why the four defense lawyers look anxiously optimistic about the third
the trial tomorrow, Wednesday, 19:10:05, 10 Clock, Room E 104th The public is allowed and encouraged.
