New attempt for justice: retrial in Kaiserslautern!

New attempt for justice: retrial in Kaiserslautern!

On July 3, 2025, the possibilities of resuming proceedings in the German legal system, particularly with regard to miscarriages of justice, will be discussed. This procedure makes it possible to break the legal force of judgments in favor of convicts through new facts or evidence. This is considered crucial in both establishing justice and correcting potential wrongful convictions. So reported WDR, that the validity of wrongful convictions is generally maintained unless sufficient new evidence is presented.

The main reasons for a retrial include new evidence, such as DNA evidence subsequently found in a murder case or a later revelation of a false witness. The courts are often afraid to question their own judgments and usually refer cases to courts in other districts. A striking example from the past is the circumstantial trial of Maria Rohrbach, who was convicted in 1957 of the murder of her husband, whose body was found under mysterious circumstances.

Current cases of readmission

A current case that sheds light on the legal process of reopening applications concerns a complainant from Koblenz. He was convicted in June 2020 for withholding and embezzling wages and tax evasion. A co-defendant of his, C., had incriminated him, but later retracted his statement. This led to the complainant requesting a reopening of the proceedings on February 15, 2022, as strafrechtsiegen.de reported.

However, in connection with the application for reopening, the prosecution found that the new facts, although considered significant, were not sufficient to accept the application. After a statement from the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Kaiserslautern Regional Court on October 30, 2023, the application was ultimately rejected as inadmissible. The case illustrates the high demands placed on the admissibility of an application for reopening.

Legal requirements for retrials

For an application for reopening to be admissible, the applicant must provide compelling legal reasons and appropriate evidence. In this particular case, the trial court recognized the revocation of C.'s confession as a new fact, but decided that this was not sufficient to overturn the original verdict. The complainant must explain in detail why the previous statement was false and the new statement is true, which proved difficult.

The Chamber found that the original evidence, including incorrect invoices and contradictory witness statements, supported the basis of the original judgment even without C.'s new statement. This conclusion shows that, even without the new findings, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's decision.