The phenomenon of a "blocking call " by the prosecutor is unfortunately not completely unknown. In this way, trying to StA necessary to prevent by placing a call to perform a jump of law against a verdict (§ 335 para 3 Code of Criminal Procedure).
This type of appeal is regularly inadmissible, as measured primarily by the criteria of RiStBV No. 147, paragraph 1, sentence 4: "The mere fact that another party has filed an appeal, is for the attorney constitute a sufficient reason to challenge the verdict as well."
To such an appeal be rejected as inadmissible, has yet to be demonstrated that are advanced by the district attorney reasons for the appeal the professional level such: advanced. It may not "reasons" not legally be worth protecting, because otherwise the appointment would be acceptable in principle with the stated reasons (even if the accused "Knows" that the district attorney here would "really" do not have appealed, he would have brought no revision).
In this case, the situation is however quite clear. But at least the Chief OSTA Uebele explained who know Grounds for its competent authorities, prosecutor although not at all - will be withdrawn the appeal is not! Even mentioned by the district attorney reasons just not worth protecting legally - which are designated by the StA Aggravating circumstances continuously as such inadmissible. Finally, the lies from the district attorney officially targeted sanctions maybe not in a "manifest imbalance" to recognized punishment as required by the RiStBV but in Section 1 No. 147 p. 3.
Accordingly, we have now asked the District Court , the appointment of district attorney to § 322 Code of Criminal Procedure discarded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment