The colleague Burhoff reported on the case of Lucas : A lawyer who is accused of obstruction of justice because he reported the reasons of appeal from an approach proposed deal offered by the criminal division, which denied this but. There have in the opinion of the Supreme Court defending the truth must be said, therefore, he is now on trial.
No matter how this process ends, ultimately, a suspicion arises: The attempts of the judiciary to discipline active defense lawyers have reached a new level. Not even in Stammheimer process ran the risk of colleagues, because of (I press that now times carefully) prosecuted in different perceptions of or prior to the trial be. If I then on the back a few years, audio recordings surfaced think: That would be a Mr. Schily in view of the case, Lucas might not have dared to ...
The consequences of this new intimidation are not foreseeable. What can I say as a defender, if I always run the risk of getting by simple denial of a criminal court to the neck, which may cost me in the condemnation case, the easy approval? What defense does not know him, the dispute with the Board on the contents of a witness' statement that some of the trial have been made earlier? And how often are defense and court each agreed to its content, only just below and almost never together? Can I, in such cases in future venture in the interest of the client and the truth of the dispute to?
my view, not only in Augsburg Mr Lucas to justice. Because: If there is a conviction, it will not need to be understood as a muzzle for active defense? If not then any future criminal sentence under suspicion, if only to have come as no longer dares defenders to fight? Whether that confidence in the rule of law actually strengthens?
against such agents of the criminal justice probably only one cure for that: The full video recording of the whole negotiation. And their usefulness in including and especially Revision process. Transparency, clarity and preservation process of law!
0 comments:
Post a Comment