Change of lawyer denied
Two of my three originally appointed defence counsel were discharged immediately after a visit observed by the security authorities. The remaining counsel was effectively unreachable for months. My own application to discharge him was decided only after 142 days, on the basis of a statement that was never disclosed to me.
Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder visited me under observation by the Landeskriminalamt (LKA, State Criminal Police Office). The LKA expressly prohibited me from discussing the ongoing proceedings. I could only say that I was no longer in contact with my defence counsel and wanted an investigation to be opened into Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs (OStA, senior public prosecutor).
Immediately after the visit described above, Vorsitzender Richter am Landgericht Groß (VRiLG, presiding judge at the Regional Court) discharged two of my three appointed defence counsel. Only RA Römer (lawyer Römer) remained; as documented in the following months, I could not communicate effectively with him either in writing or by telephone.
Since RA Römer had not responded to letters or telephone calls for months and sent me the written grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision) only on 06.12.2024, after the deadline, I terminated the retainer without notice and revoked the authority I had granted.
I formally applied for RA Römer’s appointment as my defence counsel to be revoked.
RA Römer submitted a statement to the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice) on my application to discharge him. That statement later became the central reason for rejecting the application, although it was not disclosed to me before the decision and I was given no opportunity to respond.
The chair of the 5th Criminal Division rejected my application to discharge counsel: the relationship of trust was said not to have been “irretrievably destroyed”. The decision relied centrally on RA Römer’s statement of 07.01.2025.
Assessment
There were 142 days between my application and the court’s decision, during which I formally remained represented by counsel with whom there had been no effective contact for months, while my own right to inspect the case file was also refused (see topic 2). I consider the decision to assess my submissions on the basis of an undisclosed counterstatement by counsel, without giving me an opportunity to respond, to violate my right to be heard.