Acquittal in a Case Concerning Attempted Intentional Murder Committed by a Group

The case

According to the charging decision, D.K. was accused of having planned, together with L.M., to kill the victim. For this purpose, D.K. and L.M. travelled to the victim’s place of residence in a vehicle driven by D.K. L.M. then fired a firearm from the vehicle, causing multiple injuries to the victim, as a result of which he was taken to hospital. D.K. and L.M. were unable to carry out their intention to kill the victim.

The prosecution’s main evidence consisted of recordings from video cameras located at and around the scene of the incident, as well as witness testimony confirming that D.K. had been present at the scene and in the surrounding area.

What the defense did

Within the framework of the criminal case, the defense commissioned an independent forensic video-technical examination of the recordings obtained in the case, submitted the expert report to the court, and ensured that the relevant expert was examined.

According to the expert report, no features characteristic of the use of a firearm, including gunshot traces, were identified on D.K.’s vehicle as shown in the video recordings obtained by the prosecution.

Accordingly, it was established that the video recordings in the case confirmed only D.K.’s presence at the scene, but did not establish his involvement in the attempted murder.

The combined assessment of the video recordings, the expert report, and the expert’s testimony enabled the defense to demonstrate the discrepancy between the version described by the prosecution and the circumstances objectively recorded in the case materials.

At the same time, during the trial on the merits, the prosecution witnesses were examined by the defense through cross-examination.

During the court proceedings, the questions asked by the attorneys revealed significant contradictions between the information recorded by the witnesses during the investigation and the testimony they gave in court.

The defense also assessed whether the information provided to the court by those witnesses was consistent with the other evidence in the case. The contradictions identified raised significant doubts regarding the reliability and credibility of certain pieces of prosecution evidence.

Accordingly, taking the defense position into account, particular attention was devoted to verifying the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony, examining the contradictions between the information provided during the investigation and the testimony given in court, and conducting an independent expert examination of the video material. The defense established that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D.K. had committed the offence with which he was charged.

Outcome

D.K. was fully found not guilty and acquitted in all three instances. The pre-trial detention measure imposed on him was lifted, and the wanted notice issued against D.K. was also cancelled.