Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #4

[Davieson]

Does anyone know if the "biased judge" is the same one who approved the prosecution case going to trial in the first place ?

 

[UK Girl]

Does anyone know if the "biased judge" is the same one who approved the prosecution case going to trial in the first place ?

I have no idea but what may have looked good on Paper at a guess didnt stand up to scrutiny in the actual court.

 

[misty48]

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

*snipped*
The German procedural system places great emphasis on the determination of the “substantive truth” as a basis for a just and fair outcome of any criminal case.Footnote2 The criminal process is conceived as a sequence of two independent efforts to find the truth; first by the prosecutor and the police, then by the trial court. As soon as the suspicion of a criminal offense becomes known to him, the prosecutor is obliged to investigate the matter (§ 160 sec. 1 CCP). The police are likewise mandated with investigating criminal offenses and with taking all measures necessary to avoid the loss of evidence (§ 163 sec. 1 CCP). When an indictment has been filed, it is the trial judge who must collect all evidence necessary for establishing the facts relevant for the determination of guilt or innocence (§ 244 sec. 2 CCP). In order to prevent the court’s truth-finding process from being predetermined by the prosecutor’s investigation, the court may base its judgement only on what has been said and done at the public trial (§ 261 CCP, so-called principle of immediacy); moreover, live witness testimony must not be replaced by the introduction of protocols of prior interrogations of the witness or by similar documents at the trial (§ 250 CCP).

---------------------------------------
The whole chapter is well worth a read and helps explain procedures in German Law which differ to those we are more familiar with in UK and USA.

 

[RichardKimble]

In order to prevent the court’s truth-finding process from being predetermined by the prosecutor’s investigation, the court may base its judgement only on what has been said and done at the public trial

^^
From the article posted by misty.


So what are the prosecution's issue? are they predetermining CBs guilt?

 

[Mex]

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

*snipped*
The German procedural system places great emphasis on the determination of the “substantive truth” as a basis for a just and fair outcome of any criminal case.Footnote2 The criminal process is conceived as a sequence of two independent efforts to find the truth; first by the prosecutor and the police, then by the trial court. As soon as the suspicion of a criminal offense becomes known to him, the prosecutor is obliged to investigate the matter (§ 160 sec. 1 CCP). The police are likewise mandated with investigating criminal offenses and with taking all measures necessary to avoid the loss of evidence (§ 163 sec. 1 CCP). When an indictment has been filed, it is the trial judge who must collect all evidence necessary for establishing the facts relevant for the determination of guilt or innocence (§ 244 sec. 2 CCP). In order to prevent the court’s truth-finding process from being predetermined by the prosecutor’s investigation, the court may base its judgement only on what has been said and done at the public trial (§ 261 CCP, so-called principle of immediacy); moreover, live witness testimony must not be replaced by the introduction of protocols of prior interrogations of the witness or by similar documents at the trial (§ 250 CCP).

---------------------------------------
The whole chapter is well worth a read and helps explain procedures in German Law which differ to those we are more familiar with in UK and USA.

That is a bit of a brain teaser Misty

Just to set the record straight, am I right in thinking that the criticism of the prosecutor's office is totally unwarranted.

It is all down to the presiding judge what evidence is used in the trial. Therefore it is all in the judge's hands not the prosecutor's.

Snip
The German response to such conflicts is determined, to a large extent, by the German legal system’s traditional reliance on the inquisitorial system, which places on the trial court the responsibility for collecting and evaluating the evidence as well as for finding the facts relevant to the judgement. According to § 244 sec. 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), the trial court, in particular the presiding judge, is responsible for deciding what evidence will be presented at the trial. The prosecution as well as the defense may propose additional pieces of evidence, but the court decides on the relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence (§ 244 secs. 3–6 CCP). The court is in any event free to introduce evidence that neither party has proposed.

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

Wow! it really is a far different justice system than the one we are used to.

 

[Mex]

^^
From the article posted by misty.


So what are the prosecution's issue? are they predetermining CBs guilt?

I rather think think the judge is the deciding factor here. The prosecutor is applying checks and balances after the event.

 

[Davieson]

Prosecutors wouldn't bring a case forward if they didn't believe CB guilty - one hopes.

 

[RichardKimble]

Prosecutors wouldn't bring a case forward if they didn't believe CB guilty - one hopes.

Agreed, but arguably the defence defend because they believe their client is innocent, but whats being argued and really makes not an iota is the reasoning behind the prosecution claiming bias against their argument, which will be revealed in the fullness of time.

 

[Dave55]

I have no idea but what may have looked good on Paper at a guess didnt stand up to scrutiny in the actual court.

But all the evidence hadn't been heard...the.judge confirmed that

 

[Davieson]

But all the evidence hadn't been heard...the.judge confirmed that

And no doubt still will be. The trial continues even though the arrest warrant has been lifted

 

[Anxala]

But all the evidence hadn't been heard...the.judge confirmed that

It's hard to imagine the evidence still to be heard is likely going to have much of an impact on the current state of affairs. Witness evidence for all 5 charges have been heard, the HaB one being the last. If the remaining witness' evidence were critical in any of the five charges, surely it would have already come up in court?

I just feel it's unlikely there are any bombshells waiting in the wings. JMO.

 

[Mex]

Prosecutors wouldn't bring a case forward if they didn't believe CB guilty - one hopes.

Snip
The German procedural system places great emphasis on the determination of the “substantive truth” as a basis for a just and fair outcome of any criminal case.
Footnote2
The criminal process is conceived as a sequence of two independent efforts to find the truth;
first by the prosecutor and the police,
then by the trial court.

As soon as the suspicion of a criminal offense becomes known to him, the prosecutor is obliged to investigate the matter (§ 160 sec. 1 CCP).
The police are likewise mandated with investigating criminal offenses and with taking all measures necessary to avoid the loss of evidence (§ 163 sec. 1 CCP).

When an indictment has been filed, it is the trial judge who must collect all evidence necessary for establishing the facts relevant for the determination of guilt or innocence (§ 244 sec. 2 CCP).

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

The German prosecutor became aware of evidence involving serious sexual crimes having taken place and followed their remit of investigation.

Similarly the German police fulfilled their mandate of investigating serious crimes which have been brought to their attention.

Where this particular justice system has broken down in this particular trial is the abject negligence of the trial judges in their absolute failure to 'fulfil "the determination of the “substantive truth”' without bothering to listen to the trial evidence.

The prosecutors are not responsible for this breakdown of process in this trial that is well and truly of the judges' doing and the prosecution is well within its rights to challenge the bias.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

It's hard to imagine the evidence still to be heard is likely going to have much of an impact on the current state of affairs. Witness evidence for all 5 charges have been heard, the HaB one being the last. If the remaining witness' evidence were critical in any of the five charges, surely it would have already come up in court?

I just feel it's unlikely there are any bombshells waiting in the wings. JMO.

There is a lot which may have come up in court; but we are in no position to gauge what that may be because there is little being said about it in msm.

HB's identification of CB's eyes was proven in court when to all intents and purposes the case is finished.
Unless the judges are going to decide that despite rubbishing their own evidence contained in the five indictments they intend to do a bombshell U turn later on in the process - whatever process that now is.

Snip
According to § 244 sec. 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), the trial court, in particular the presiding judge, is responsible for deciding what evidence will be presented at the trial. The prosecution as well as the defense may propose additional pieces of evidence, but the court decides on the relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence (§ 244 secs. 3–6 CCP). The court is in any event free to introduce evidence that neither party has proposed.

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

It defies reason that in five counts, a known and convicted paedophile and abuser has been in effect exonerated in a German court, despite being arrested in flagrante with his trousers around his ankles in a children's playground by a police officer, while a European Arrest Warrant for another charge hovered in the wings.

This represents a huge breakdown of law and order if judges have dismissed the evidence surrounding this case in which this proven abuser of children was handed immediately to the German authorities straight from his arrest in a Portuguese playground for children.
My opinion

 

[RichardKimble]

Paywalled, the prosecution have made another objection against a judge,the bolded bit,is maybe the journalist's opinion.
Decision still to be made before Aug 5th.

Maddie-Verdächtiger Christian B.: nächste Attacke gegen Richterin

Der Streit zwischen der Staatsanwaltschaft und dem Landgericht Braunschweig wird immer heftiger. Wird der Prozess fortgesetzt und kommt es womöglich am Ende zu einen Freispruch, oder kommt es zum kompletten Neustart?

www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de

No matter how it turns out: The trial of the year against Christian B. is controversial outside the courtroom in Braunschweig's judicial circles. It can be heard there that the violent dispute between the public prosecutor and the district court could have a serious impact on the relationship between the two authorities beyond the trial.