Discharge of my lawyers
On 12.09.2024 I received Judge Groß’s order discharging two of my lawyers, lawyer Mumm and lawyer Jochmann, from their duties as defence counsel. (Literally after the above-mentioned visit by Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder.) Only lawyer R remained as defence counsel, but I could communicate with him neither in writing nor orally, as he responded neither to my letters nor to my telephone calls. This also affected the preparation of the appeal on points of law (Revision). (Anlage 25_F3)
Certified copy. Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I). Order. Case reference: (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23). Date: 12.09.2024.
In the criminal case against Dmitry Bagrash, born on 09.05.1968 in Moscow, currently in pretrial detention at Justizvollzugsanstalt Moabit (Moabit Prison), prisoner register no.: 2796/22-6, a Russian citizen, defence counsel: lawyer Piet Mumm, An der Karlshorster Heide 44, 10318 Berlin/Karlshorst; lawyer Elvis Jochmann, Uhlandstr. 28, 10719 Berlin; lawyer Bernd Römer, Wilmersdorfer Straße 157, 10585 Berlin, on charges of attempted murder and other offences.
The appointment of lawyers Mumm and Jochmann as court-appointed defence counsel is revoked.
Reasons
The appointments had to be revoked under § 143 Abs. 2 StPO because, following the conclusion of the trial and the pronouncement of judgment, that is, at the stage of the appeal on points of law, defence by several lawyers is no longer required. As lawyer Römer’s email shows that, in agreement with the two other previous defence counsel, he is to represent the defendant in the appeal on points of law, the discretion as to which two of the three court-appointed defence counsel should have their appointments revoked had to be exercised in the manner ordered.
It is expressly pointed out that neither of the two discharges could also be justified by a breakdown in the relationship of trust, since no even remotely tenable indications of such a breakdown have been presented or are otherwise apparent.
Information on legal remedies: A sofortige Beschwerde (immediate appeal) against this order is admissible and may be lodged with the court that issued it within one week of the date on which this decision is served, in writing or by a declaration recorded by the court registry.
Groß, Presiding Judge at the Regional Court, Criminal Chamber 522. Certified as a true copy: Berlin, 12.09.2024, Füstmann, Senior Judicial Secretary. Certified by automated processing — valid without a signature.
Commentary — Dmitry Bagrash’s assessment
This order marked the start of the period in which I was effectively without a defence. I could reach the remaining court-appointed defence counsel neither in writing nor by telephone — including for the preparation of the appeal on points of law. I record the temporal connection with the preceding visit by Prof. Dr. Heinemann-Grüder; I do not assert a causal connection. What matters is the consequence: from that day on, I depended on access to the court registry officer (Urkundsbeamter), because no other route to the court remained open to me.
Source of the document
Anlage 25_F3 (order of LG Berlin of 12.09.2024): Anlage 25_F3.pdf (additional copies: Link, Link)
Note: This is the first event in the Case 2 chronology. The visit by Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder mentioned in the main text forms part of the complainant’s own account of the context of this discharge of defence counsel.