The young man looks tensely at his folded hands, then turns back to his girlfriend with the child in the auditorium. But she can't help him now either. Now he has to go through it alone. He does not have a defense lawyer. He can't afford him. So he alone has to face the accusations of the public prosecutor's office – and they are no trifles.
The accused contradicts
in 17 cases, he is said to have violated the narcotics law. It was not a question of a so-called "softer" approach drug like cannabis, but about the dangerous amphetamine. He is said to have repeatedly bought one or two grams of the drug, ten times he is said to have bought ten grams. He is said to have stored 50 grams of the drug at his home.
Reproaches that are not so easy to digest and that the 28-year-old simply does not understand. "I don't know where the witnesses get the idea that they want to piss on my leg. It is laughable that they pay such a slice."
The warehouse worker has a drug past, which he does not want to deny. But he only consumed, he never sold. "When we left, we did a joint first", he tells the judge. And that's how it stayed, the defendant affirms again and again. Only hash, no amphetamines. He bought the material on the street, for example from "some strange arab in the park."
A drug courier?
Presiding judge marc betz reads out the police statement of a witness. This incriminates the defendant extremely. Among other things, he is said to have acted as a drug courier. The defendant protects his head, which is red with tension. "I don't even know who this woman is", he fights back with a fractured voice.
"For all this you do not rub their heads", the prosecutor tries to reassure the accused. "I try to accommodate them." What she demands in return is clear: a confession from the accused, but nothing comes of it, the accused sticks to his statement: "i smoked something now and then, but there was nothing with amphetamines."
That this is not true becomes clear at the latest after the testimony of the first witness. The witness had been smoking pot with him or had taken some amphetamine. And that's when it becomes clear: the defendant lied about his amphetamine use. "When we went to the disco, I just put my nose through it", confesses the young family man now. "It was a blonde time, but I've come to terms with it." When he met his girlfriend, he stopped taking amphetamines.
An incriminating witness statement
The second witness exonerates the accused very much. He himself is handcuffed and brought before the court by two police officers. For him, the defendant is said to have played the drug mule. "This is absurd!", says the witness. "Whoever says such a thing has a hit on his hands!" He knew the defendant only from a visit to the casino and from eating pizza.
So far, everything seems to have gone well for the defendant. Both witnesses tended to exonerate him. But then the tide turns when a 24-year-old woman takes the witness stand. She is in the correctional facility. Drug deals. She also knows the defendant. Although she had never had anything to do with him, she claims to have heard how he had done some crooked things with witness number two. "Maybe you are confusing me", the defendant replies, but the witness sticks to her version of events.
Another witness also strongly incriminates him. And so the noose tightens further and further. The only thing that now speaks for the innocence of the accused – the police could not find anything in his apartment. But still: the two testimonies against him weigh heavy.
Remorse in the end
At the end of the trial the defendant regrets his drug past. "My mistake was consuming and dealing with the wrong ones." A mistake, which is not yet finished with this trial day. Nevertheless: the young father sticks to his version. A fifth witness was supposed to testify, but he could not be summoned in time. The defendant does not want to give him up, too much depends on this trial.
So the trial will have to be continued on another day. "The whole thing is somewhat unsatisfactory", remarks judge marc betz. He must have spoken from the defendant's heart, because he now has to wait another two weeks until he can finally come to terms with his drug history.