Part 3
Hearing
The defense responded in a counterstatement and replied that the prosecution had so far refrained from clarifying the case and that it was rather the court that was delaying the proceedings due to its procedural methods.
Moreover, the maxim of the trial was not to be completed particularly quickly. Against the background of the time aspect that the client is in pre-trial detention, the trial maxim cannot be to finish particularly quickly in order to keep the pre-trial detention as short as possible and the criminal detention as long as possible, since the prosecution had already applied for a prison sentence of 3 years and 9 months and for the arrest warrant to be upheld. This means that the defendant would not be released, not even when the verdict is announced. The maxim of the trial could only ever be the thorough clarification of the facts of the case. The defendant has a right to this. In this case, this is being trampled underfoot by the public prosecutor's office and the court with the current procedure. Today's trial day lasted six hours, during which the four witnesses present could have simply been questioned instead of reading the motions for evidence themselves and then rejecting them. By summoning witnesses, the defense does not delay anything at all: the witness statements are not redundant, i.e. they are not repeated, but it is precisely about the questioning of witnesses, including Viviane Fischer, after the legal notice of 3.5.24 by the court and after the resulting changed assessment of it. Therefore, in order to clarify the facts, it would have been absolutely necessary to hear the witnesses present and also to hear Viviane Fischer again on the changed basis of the court.
@wearegreeekja
Hearing
The defense responded in a counterstatement and replied that the prosecution had so far refrained from clarifying the case and that it was rather the court that was delaying the proceedings due to its procedural methods.
Moreover, the maxim of the trial was not to be completed particularly quickly. Against the background of the time aspect that the client is in pre-trial detention, the trial maxim cannot be to finish particularly quickly in order to keep the pre-trial detention as short as possible and the criminal detention as long as possible, since the prosecution had already applied for a prison sentence of 3 years and 9 months and for the arrest warrant to be upheld. This means that the defendant would not be released, not even when the verdict is announced. The maxim of the trial could only ever be the thorough clarification of the facts of the case. The defendant has a right to this. In this case, this is being trampled underfoot by the public prosecutor's office and the court with the current procedure. Today's trial day lasted six hours, during which the four witnesses present could have simply been questioned instead of reading the motions for evidence themselves and then rejecting them. By summoning witnesses, the defense does not delay anything at all: the witness statements are not redundant, i.e. they are not repeated, but it is precisely about the questioning of witnesses, including Viviane Fischer, after the legal notice of 3.5.24 by the court and after the resulting changed assessment of it. Therefore, in order to clarify the facts, it would have been absolutely necessary to hear the witnesses present and also to hear Viviane Fischer again on the changed basis of the court.
@wearegreeekja