Court procedure; German style

I thought readers might be interested in a brief review of the court case I attended last week. I hasten to add, as a spectator, not in any "official" capacity.

The case is an interesting one for a number of reasons. The accused is charged with two counts of manslaughter and disposed of the bodies by burning them in a very interesting manner. This is the reason I attended the trial and I will give more details when I am able to do so.

The German Courts have no Jury, the bench has five members, with a Presiding Judge, two Assessors and two lay members drawn from the electoral rolls by ballot in much the same manner as the UK's Jury Selection process. One difference, however, is the fact that potential lay members are screened to ensure they are qualified to understand the complexities of the case. Seated on either side of the court, with the defence at a level lower than the bench, are the Prosecutor on the Right of the Bench and the Defence facing him on the left. A major difference with a UK Court is the presence on the Prosecution's side of a Legal Rep and the victim's family representative, with another Legal Rep on the Defence side representing the accused's family! Cross-examination is generally led, as in the UK system, by the Prosecution, followed by the Defence, but then the other two parties are also allowed to examine the witness as are the three judges.

On the day I was present the evidence was being given by a Pathologist and a representative of the Bundeskriminalamt's Forensic Science Institute's Fire Investigation Unit and the questions all revolved around the method of destroying a body by fire. Watching the cross examination and listening to the technical answers proved very interesting indeed. Video of some experiments was shown, powerpoint was used, copies of technical papers circulated and examined and the court even adjourned to read a rather longer and more complicated one submitted by the FIO.

In the end the court adjourned, but issued a recall for the experts for later this month to answer specific questions raised in the evidence and which will require further research and calculation.

One thing was clearly evident throughout, bias is very difficult to sustain in this environment since, with four legal teams present and the bench any attempt at bias is quickly revealed. Unlike the "Adversarial" approach in the UK which does teend to sway a jury, there is a much calmer and more inquisitorial approach in this system. That said, don't try to evade a question or deliver a half answer. The Judges are very quick to demand a proper response and to dismiss anything which is inappropriate.

So how do the "Lay" members of the bench function?

They are also permitted to ask for explanations, though they usually do so through one of the Judges. Their main function is to listen, to watch and to assist the Judge in reaching a conclusion - and obviously, to ensure that conclusion has been reached in a balanced and even handed manner.

Of all the courts I have attended, this one struck me as being very fair in its deliberations (Interestingly the BKA witness and the Pathologist were called by the Defence Team.) and to contain some checks and balances not always present in a jury system. Giving evidence in this style of court may be slightly more 'relaxed' but is still no place for ill-informed or unscientific witnesses, the least suspicion of unqualified or unquantifiable answers or of unsubstantiated evidence is likely to bring down the wrath of the bench on the witness and get the evidence challenged and dismissed.

If you're lucky, you'll escape with a caution not to waste the courts time...

Having watched this court at work, I seriously recommend to everyone that time spent in the public gallery of a range of different courts and legal systems will be time very well spent indeed.