Murder Suspect Winemaker: Lawyer Accuses Judiciary of Bias
Defense attorney Michael Dohr relies on the decisions by which the St. Pölten Regional Court imposed or extended the pre-trial detention. However, his applications for bias were rejected by the court's presidency as "incomprehensible."
The winemaker is alleged to have administered an overdose of pentobarbital sodium to a wealthy widow to gain her property. The 71-year-old died on March 7 from taking the sleeping pill, which is used in human and veterinary medicine. The 57-year-old denies having intentionally killed the woman, with whom he was closely friends. He claims that he provided legally permitted assisted suicide at her request for the bedridden widow, who was dependent on 24-hour care after a stroke.
In the pre-trial detention decisions, the accused is described as a "narcissistic, greedy, and fraudulent personality" who is ready to "literally 'walk over corpses'" when the opportunity arises. The St. Pölten detention judges therefore see an urgent suspicion of the crime in connection with the danger of committing the crime in the 57-year-old.
Defense Attorney Sees Presumption of Innocence Violated
For the defense attorney, a violation of the presumption of innocence is evident. "Only a psychiatrist can provide information about the personality profile of the accused, not a detention and legal protection judge based on telephone surveillance and statements from individual persons," Dohr stated in his applications for bias. The claim that the winemaker would "walk over corpses when the opportunity arises" is undoubtedly prejudicial and is not appropriate for a detention and legal protection judge, as he only has to decide on an urgent suspicion of the crime."
However, Dohr's submissions were dismissed. Regarding the two judges whom the defense attorney rejects as biased, "objectively speaking, there are no reasons that would cast doubt on their full impartiality and neutrality (...)," stated Andrea Humer, the president of the St. Pölten Regional Court, who had to decide on the alleged bias. Judges must evaluate the available evidence when assessing the detention issue and draw appropriate conclusions: "It is not comprehensible from what the accused derives a personal interest of the judges in convicting the accused."
(APA/Red)
This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.