A rather mundane situation appeared today before the district court.
My client was called as a witness to proceedings against the former co-defendants. Its revision was successful, my client does not. Now he should say so in the repeated trial of the former co-defendants. Special feature: Currently, a constitutional appeal against the the revision of my client warping BGH at the Federal Constitutional Court.
As legal counsel I had argued for this reason a right to silence my client. And I already called me on the case decided that a recovery is sought but not yet decided. Then access to § 55 of Criminal Procedure. Nothing else can apply my view here. Especially since we believe the client is not already in its procedure and substance of the admission of evidence was rejected, which should confirm his appearance. If he has to say now, so he faces an investigation for giving false testimony, provided he remains in what he has said so far. In light of today had even agreed to present not only my attorney appointment of counsel as a witness but also supports my argument regarding the Code of Criminal Procedure § 55.
The court did after a short pause advice but not in a position to decide the question. Although the analogy of light to a retrial, but we wanted to examine the detail. The client may receive short-term re-charge, one should not grant the right to silence.
Whatever the district court decides, the decision is worthy of publication in each case. Probably begrudge the board needs a little more time. It will not embarrass himself at last.
0 comments:
Post a Comment