In the so-called Fretterode trial before the Mühlhausen Regional Court (case number: 3 KLs 101 Js 47753/18 jug), the court, with its demonstrably lenient verdict, has sent a disastrous signal for the protection of journalists investigating right-wing extremism. With today's verdict in the Fretterode trial, the two defendants, Gianluca B., were sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended on probation, and Nordulf H. was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service under juvenile law. This verdict joins a series of exceptionally lenient sentences handed down by the Thuringian judiciary in recent years in cases involving neo-Nazi violence.
“Contrary to our understanding of the extensive evidence presented, the court has expressed a reluctance to believe the co-plaintiffs at crucial points. They are the only ones who were seriously injured that day; they are the ones who presented evidence of the crime; they are the ones whose statements were corroborated by uninvolved witnesses and expert witnesses, and who refuted the defendants' statements. The oral explanation of the verdict is a slap in the face to the two co-plaintiffs, who are apparently given just as much or as little credence as the extensively refuted statements of the accused neo-Nazis,” said attorney Sven Adam, representing one of the co-plaintiffs, expressing his outrage at the lenient verdict and especially the oral explanation of the verdict. “The court is making an emotional reaction out of what was a deliberate and enforced no-go area for political opponents and specialist journalists in Fretterode, based on alleged actions by anti-fascists in Fretterode that are unrelated in time and were not discussed during the taking of evidence. The last bus trip by anti-fascists to Fretterode to publicly criticize the neo-Nazi center took place 20 years ago. The taking of evidence did not reveal any further events that could have justified a threat to the Heise house. The oral explanation of the verdict is characterized by a great deal of, and inexplicable, understanding for the mindset of violent neo-Nazis,” Adam continued.
“The verdict is a scandal and a fatal signal to the militant Nazi scene, which, particularly in Thuringia, apparently feels free to get away with almost anything,” added lawyer Rasmus Kahlen, who also represents one of the co-plaintiffs. “The court even repeatedly refers to ‘opponents’ in its oral explanation of the verdict. As if a ‘combative confrontation’ had taken place between the two sides. A blatant trivialization of the crime. The co-plaintiffs fled, were hunted, did not attack anyone, and suffered life-threatening injuries. Againstthis backdrop, the verdict can only be described as a gross misjudgment of the facts,” Kahlen continued.
For further questions, please contact the lawyers Sven Adam and Rasmus Kahlen using the contact details provided.
