Case 0 · Background to the prosecution · received 21.07.2025

Annex 19_F0 — discontinuance of the complaint against KK Weiß; the requirement for a lawyer barred proceedings to compel prosecution (Klageerzwingung)

Open document (PDF) ← Chronology archive

On 23.01.2024 I lodged a criminal complaint against criminal police officer (Kriminalkommissar) Max Weiß alleging false unsworn testimony (§ 153 StGB), recorded at the court registry — details in Dossier Wachs, point 3c. This document is the response to it.

The notice of 09.07.2025

The Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin) discontinued the proceedings by notice of 09.07.2025 (file reference 171 Js 25/24, prepared on 11.07.2025, signed Müller-Gebert, Senior Public Prosecutor — Oberstaatsanwalt) under § 170 para. 2 StPO. I received it on 21.07.2025.

The central reasoning primarily relies on an email from my defence counsel at the time, lawyer Dr. Risch, of 02.04.2023, 09:22, stating that I had been ready for questioning at any time — from this it concludes that witness Weiß’s testimony was not incorrect in this respect. The notice additionally refers to the Schwurgericht (court chamber for particularly serious crimes), which had “no doubts whatsoever overall, knowing the circumstances”, as to the correctness of the witness’s testimony.

Alternative hypothesisDiscontinuance under § 170 para. 2 StPO is the statutory course where there is insufficient suspicion of an offence. Relying on an existing email and the trial court’s assessment of the evidence is not implausible in a subsequent examination — both sources were already on file and did not have to be obtained anew.

What is missingAn investigative step by the Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) itself going beyond assessment of the existing email and the reasons for the judgment — for example, questioning the persons involved about the three individual points named in the complaint.

The remedy against this was barred

The notice’s information on remedies specifies a requirement for an application to compel prosecution (Klageerzwingungsantrag) under § 172 para. 2 StPO, worded as follows:

“It must be signed by a lawyer…” (§ 172 para. 3 StPO)

At that time I had no defence counsel and no financial means to instruct one. The only statutory remedy against the discontinuance was therefore barred to me on practical grounds because a lawyer was required, rather than for reasons relating to the merits. For context: Both the notice itself (page 2) and § 172 para. 3 StPO mention the possibility of applying to the competent Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) for legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) for representation by a lawyer. This legal possibility existed; I cannot say with certainty whether I knew of it at the time or whether it would have been practically accessible from custody. I therefore do not claim that the remedy was legally barred without an alternative, but that it was barred for me personally, without knowledge or use of this possibility.

Why this matters today. On 02.09.2026 I lodged a criminal complaint under § 339 StGB against presiding judge Groß and Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Wachs — see Dossier Groß, point 18 and For prosecution authorities. I still have no defence counsel. If this complaint is also discontinued, I would find myself in the same situation as here: a remedy provided by law but practically unusable.

This page presents Dmitry Bagrash’s account and legal assessment and distinguishes documented events from statements by the person concerned. No decision has been made on the allegation against the officer whose testimony was reported; the presumption of innocence applies.