VERDICT
36 Cs 301 Js 29027/24 (177/24)
In the criminal case
against
1. xxx,
born on xxx in xxx,
residing at xxx, xxx,
single, nationality: xxx,
Defense counsel:
Attorney Rasmus Kahlen,
Lange Geismarstraße 55,
37073 Göttingen
2. xxx,
born on xxx in xxx,
residing at xxx, xxx,
single, nationality: xxx,
Defense counsel:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismar Straße 55,
37073 Göttingen
for resisting law enforcement officers
The Göttingen District Court – Criminal Judge – in the public session of March 13, 2025, in which the following participated:
Judge at the District Court xxx
as criminal judge
Trainee lawyer xxx
as an official of the public prosecutor's office
Attorney Rasmus Kahlen
as defense counsel
; Attorney Sven Adam
as defense counsel
Chief Justice Secretary xxx
as certifying officer of the registry
recognized as rightful:
The defendants are acquitted.
The expenses of the state treasury and the necessary expenses of the defendant shall be borne by the state treasury.
REASONS
(abbreviated pursuant to Section 267 Paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO))
I.
1.) According to the indictment in the penal order issued by the Göttingen District Court on September 26, 2024, the defendant xxx was accused of:
On January 13, 2024, the demonstration "Freedom of Assembly Instead of Extremism" took place in Göttingen. To disrupt the march, the defendant and other counter-demonstrators planned a sit-in blockade on the registered route, specifically on Friedländer Weg. To this end, the defendant and other counter-demonstrators stormed out of the rear of the "Pro Senior Residenz" building to reach Friedländer Weg. Police Officer xxx attempted to prevent this action and positioned himself on the sidewalk of Friedländer Weg between house numbers 55A and 55. However, the defendant's group was undeterred and ran past Police Officer xxx, who even managed to punch some individuals in the face to stop them. As she had intended from the outset, the defendant then charged with all her might into Police Officer xxx's torso to force him to clear the way for her. However, POK xxx then wrapped his right arm around the defendant and his left arm around the separately prosecuted xxx. To break free and continue onto the street, the defendants pushed both of them so hard against the officer's upper body that he and the defendant were pushed several meters into the street, which was exactly what the defendants intended. POK xxx was only able to stop the defendant by shifting his weight and bringing her to the ground
Criminal Code
2.) According to the indictment in the penal order issued by the Göttingen District Court on September 30, 2024, the defendant xxx was accused of:
On January 13, 2024, the demonstration "Freedom of Assembly Instead of Extremism" took place in Göttingen. To disrupt the march, the defendant and other counter-demonstrators planned a sit-in blockade on the registered route, specifically on Friedländer Weg. To this end, the defendant and other counter-demonstrators stormed out of the rear of the "Pro Senior Residenz" building to reach Friedländer Weg. Police Officer xxx attempted to prevent this action and positioned himself on the sidewalk of Friedländer Weg between house numbers 55A and 55. However, the defendant's group was undeterred and ran past Police Officer xxx, who even managed to punch some individuals in the face to stop them. At this point, the defendant was behind the separately prosecuted woman xxx, who ran with all her might into the upper body of Police Officer xxx. In doing so, Police Officer xxx wrapped his right arm around the separately prosecuted woman and his left arm around the defendant. However, in order to break free from the officer's grasp and continue onto the street, the defendant and the separately prosecuted individual xxx both pressed so hard against the officer's upper body that he and the defendant were pushed several meters into the street, which was exactly what the defendant intended. Police Officer xxx was only able to stop the defendant by shifting his weight and bringing her to the ground.
Offense of resisting law enforcement officers, punishable under Section 113 Paragraph 1 of the German Criminal Code.
II.
The two defendants must be acquitted of these charges for factual reasons. The evidence presented during the main hearing did not provide the court with sufficient proof to establish the facts to the extent that it was convinced of their guilt.
Based on the findings made by the court to the greatest extent possible and applying the principle of reasonable doubt, it cannot be established that the defendants used force within the meaning of Section 113 of the German Criminal Code against witness POK xxx or any other police officer or physically attacked them.
The video recordings examined during the main trial, which captured the events from various perspectives, show the defendants, along with other individuals dressed in black, running downhill from a driveway leading to Friedländer Weg, heading towards Friedländer Weg. The footage shows Police Officer xxx attempting to confront these individuals alone, preventing them from reaching Friedländer Weg by extending his arms to both sides. During this attempt, Police Officer xxx shifts his position from the left side of the driveway to the right side, where the two defendants try to get past him and onto the road. The footage shows the defendants attempting to evade Police Officer xxx's outstretched arms. From another camera angle, Police Officer xxx manages to grab the two defendants with his arms by shifting his position and then, without further action, brings them to the ground.
If Police Officer xxx, who testified as a witness in the main hearing, attempted to explain the fact that the location where he apprehended the two defendants and their subsequent position on the sidewalk were several meters apart by claiming that the defendants had continued to try to walk towards Friedländer Weg after being apprehended, this is not supported by the video recordings examined. These recordings show Police Officer xxx immediately bringing the two defendants to the ground after grabbing them, without the defendants attempting to take any further steps towards Friedländer Weg.
After all this, the defendants were to be acquitted – in accordance with the prosecution's request.
III.
The decision on costs is based on Section 467 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
