Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:04:04.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Guarantee of Defence Counsel and the Exclusionary Rules on Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christian Fahl

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The right of counsel in criminal proceedings is granted by section 137 (1) of the Strafprozessordnung (Criminal Procedure Code), which gives a person the right to obtain legal advice in criminal proceedings whenever he or she wishes, or as the law states: “in jeder Lage des Verfahrens“ (at any stage of the proceedings). There are different stages of criminal proceedings, which are to be distinguished under German Law, but section 137 governs the whole process and is not limited, for instance, to the pre-trial or the trial itself.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , 01 November 2007 , pp. 1053 - 1067
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Held during the International Seminar on Enhancing the Protection of the Rights of the Suspect and Defendant in Criminal Justice Processes 26 / 27 June 2007 in Beijing, China, sponsored by the Criminal Legislation Department of the Legislative Affairs Commission (LAC) of the National Congress, the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) and the China International Center for Economic and Technical Exchange (CICETE).Google Scholar

2 Reichs Law Gazette 253 (1877).Google Scholar

3 Federal Law Gazette I 3686 (1974).Google Scholar

4 See AnwBl 17 (1975).Google Scholar

5 39 BVerfG 156 = also published in NJW 1013 (1975).Google Scholar

6 15 BGHSt 306 = NJW 740 (1961).Google Scholar

7 See for instance Sandra Pellkofer, Sockelverteidigung und Strafvereitelung (1999).Google Scholar

8 For example: OLG Brandenburg, NJW 521 (2005); OLG Karlsruhe, StV 586 (2004); OLG Hamm, StV 586 (2004).Google Scholar

9 Werner Beulke, Strafprozessrecht, 102 (9th ed., 2006).Google Scholar

10 See for instance 47 BGHSt 68 (2001).Google Scholar

11 See Friedrich Wolff, Verlorene Prozesse 1953-1998, 23 (2nd ed., 1999).Google Scholar

12 As was the case in the decision 1 BvR 873/96, NStZ 35 (1997).Google Scholar

13 BGH StV 241 (1998).Google Scholar

14 See for instance the decision of the Higher Regional Court in Nuremburg, which I commented on in JA 368 (2003).Google Scholar

15 See 27 BGHSt 260.Google Scholar

16 See 38 BGHSt 46.Google Scholar

17 BGH NStZ 85 (1983).Google Scholar

18 See Beulke (note 9), 95.Google Scholar

19 See Christian Fahl, Rechtsmissbrauch im Strafprozess, 190 (2004).Google Scholar

20 BGH NJW 975 (2002).Google Scholar

21 BGH NStZ 261 (1996); see comment by Werner Beulke, NStZ 257 (1996) and comment by Christian Fahl, JA 747 (1996).Google Scholar

22 24 BGHSt 125.Google Scholar

23 BGH NStZ 375 (1989).Google Scholar

24 In one case, the Vice President of the Police Department of Frankfurt, Daschner, ordered that an accused was forced to tell the police where he buried his victim, a fourteen year old son of a bank manger. This was different in the respect that the threat of violence was not used in order to make the accused make a confession, but was employed to try to save the victim's life. The case has proven very controversial, ending with a conviction of the police officer and his dismissal from the police; see Regional Court of Frankfurt, NJW 692 (2005); for further details see Christian Fahl, JR 182 (2004).Google Scholar

25 12 BGHSt 332.Google Scholar

26 1 BGHSt 337.Google Scholar

27 13 BGHSt 60, 61.Google Scholar

28 See Lutz Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung 514 (46th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

29 5 BGHSt 332.Google Scholar

30 44 BGHSt 308.Google Scholar

31 22 BGHSt 170.Google Scholar

32 38 BGHSt 214.Google Scholar

33 27 BGHSt 358; 31 BGHSt 71; 34 BGHSt 364.Google Scholar

34 Werner Sarstedt, in: Löwe / Rosenberg, Strafprozessordnung, section 136a / 7 (22nd ed.).Google Scholar

35 See 45 BGHSt 321 – as opposed to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights published in NStZ 47 (1999).Google Scholar

36 19 BGHSt 325.Google Scholar

37 34 BGHSt 397.Google Scholar

38 80 BGHSt 267.Google Scholar

39 For further details see Christian Fahl / Johannes Roeckl, NZA 1035 (1998).Google Scholar

40 See Werner Beulke, NStZ 257 (1996) and Christian Fahl, JA 747 (1996).Google Scholar