Full Acquittal of M.B. in a Case Involving Threats to Kill

The case

According to the charging decision, the threats to kill made by M.B. caused the victim to develop a well-founded fear that the threats would be carried out.

The prosecution charged M.B. with committing two episodes of threats to kill repeatedly, meaning that M.B. had previously been convicted of a similar offence against the same victim.

What the defense did

In this criminal case, attorney Avtandil Giorgadze conducted an alternative investigation because it was of decisive importance that the two new episodes of threats to kill brought against M.B. be assessed not on the basis of his previous conviction, but on the basis of the evidence in the specific case.

The evidence obtained through the defense’s alternative investigation established that M.B. and the victim had been involved for a long period in a family and property dispute concerning a shared residential house. It also established that a significant number of the prosecution’s key witnesses in the criminal case were participants in the same civil dispute or persons connected with its participants.

During the trial on the merits, the defense required the prosecution to prove each episode of the alleged threat to kill through independent and reliable evidence, since the existence of a conflict between the parties, by itself, could not establish that a crime had been committed.

The defense identified additional witnesses, including neutral witnesses, and independently verified factual circumstances relevant to the case.

The testimony of the defense witnesses established that, at the time of the alleged incident relating to one of the episodes, M.B. was not present at the scene at all. With regard to the second episode, the evidence obtained did not confirm the sequence of events described by the prosecution.

In particular, the defense identified a neutral witness who, according to the prosecution’s version, should have been a direct participant in the events that allegedly occurred as part of the second episode. However, the prosecution had never interviewed that witness. The witness’s testimony did not confirm the conflict or the threat described by the prosecution.

In addition, the scene inspection conducted by the defense revealed circumstances that substantially called into question the reliability of one of the prosecution witness’s testimony and the possibility that the events had unfolded in the manner described by that witness.

At the same time, attorney Avtandil Giorgadze paid particular attention to the consistency, reliability, and possible bias of the prosecution witnesses.

During the court proceedings, it became apparent that the victim had difficulty independently describing the specific episodes relied upon as the basis of the charges. It was also established that the testimony given in court by some witnesses differed materially from the information they had provided during the investigation.

It was further established that several prosecution witnesses had not directly witnessed the alleged offence and that part of the information they provided was based on information received from other persons.

Outcome

As a result of the alternative investigation conducted by attorney Avtandil Giorgadze, the collection of additional evidence, and a detailed assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony, it became possible to disprove the factual basis of both episodes of the charges brought against M.B.

M.B. was therefore fully found not guilty and acquitted of both episodes of threats to kill with which he had been charged.