News server Romea.cz. Everything about Roma in one place

News server Romea.cz. Everything about Roma in one place

Attorney for the Vítkov arson victims: The defense pulled out all the stops

22 October 2012
3 minute read

The trial of those charged with the Vítkov arson attack is coming to an end. This week the state prosecutor, the attorneys for the victims and the defense were to have made their closing arguments, but this did not happen due to requests made by some of the defendants. The court has nevertheless closed the evidentiary phase and has announced with 100 % certainty that closing arguments will begin on 5 October. Pavel Uhl, attorney for the arson victims who are minors, described the events of the past three days of the trial in an interview with Romea.cz.

The hearings significantly deviated from the judge’s intended program this week. How did that come about?

I am not certain to what extent such a program was expressly conceived, but it is true that the trial dragged on somewhat because of procedural objections, motions and demands made by some of the defendants. The court gives great consideration to each demand, which delays the trial as a whole. Compared to the usual trial conditions in the Czech Republic, this court has been very accommodating. It seems to me that its ambition is for the trial as a whole to be absolutely unassailable as far as the procedural aspect is concerned should it be reviewed by further instances such as the appeals court, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, Strasbourg – even the Last Judgment. The defense is exploiting this situation. I sometimes have the impression the defense is just testing what they can get away with.

The attorney for defendant David Vaculík, Mr Kausta, received part of one day to study the file together with his client. How did he justify that request?

He argued that he wanted to review the file with his client, to consult him, and to advise him before he makes a statement on the final evidence proposed. I do not consider that request unusual. What I do consider unusual was that it was made at an inappropriate time. Almost all of the evidence had been reviewed prior to the summer recess, and the defense could have reviewed the file with his client during the break.

Witness Marek Heczko, who previously refused to testify out of concern for his family’s safety, was summoned once again, and the court once again definitively accepted the explanation he gave for refusing to testify and has not sanctioned him. Can’t this “compromise” on the part of the court be attacked by the defense in a later phase of the trial?

There is no doubt it will be attacked, but I believe that effort will not be successful, because the legal requirements were met for the testimony given by that witness during the preliminary proceedings to be read into the record. The law does not instruct the court to use the instrument of sanctions unsuccessfully. The defense can now only raise doubts regarding the evidence from the preceding testimony, as read into the record. Even if they theoretically succeeded in that, it would not cast a shadow over the trial as a whole, just on that one piece of evidence, which is not particularly essential to the case.

The trial should continue on 5 October, the evidentiary phase is over. We assume the trial dates in October will be dedicated to the closing arguments of the state prosecutor, the attorneys for the victims and the defense, and then that the senate of judges will take time to adjudicate. Might the trial be delayed somehow, do you assume it will be?

The evidentiary phase is closed, so I do not predict much more obstruction, because such moves usually concern evidentiary motions. The defense can only influence the length of the proceedings through the length of its closing arguments. I do not predict a delay. Of course, it is possible the court will give itself a longer amount of time for adjudication after the defendants’ final arguments.

Help us share the news about Romas
Trending now icon