Shock in the trial: Defense lawyers criticize experts in the murder case in Stade!

Shock in the trial: Defense lawyers criticize experts in the murder case in Stade!

The trial against Mustafa M. at the Stade regional court continues to cause excitement. The defendant is accused of killing Khaled R. in a knife attack in Stade on March 22, 2024. This trial is based on treacherous murder, which could result in a possible life sentence for Mustafa M. The public prosecutor's office and co-plaintiffs are of the opinion that the murder characteristic of insidiousness, i.e. the conscious exploitation of the victim's guile and defenselessness, is fulfilled here.

On the 30th day of the trial, which took place on July 1, 2025, defense attorney Dinah Busse and Dr. Dirk Meinicke made eleven applications. The taking of evidence is scheduled to conclude on July 8th this year and the verdict could come as early as September 3rd. In a bitter dispute over the experts, serious allegations were made against the court-appointed experts. In particular, the defense believes Dr. Jürgen Schmitz and Professor Dr. Benjamin Ondruschka for “biased” and “not competent”. The latter explained that the defendant had shown a “massive will to injure and destroy”.

Criticism of the reports

The defense lawyers accuse Ondruschka of being biased and of exceeding his authority. They are demanding a new biomechanical report from an expert at the Charité in Berlin in order to question the credibility of the previous expert entries. Dr. Jürgen Schmitz, who wrote the report on the defendant's psychological state, found no evidence of a loss of control of reality, which the defense described as "technically inadequate" and even assumed billing fraud.

A central argument of the defense is that Mustafa M.'s cultural background and childhood were not sufficiently taken into account. They refer to Section 20 of the Criminal Code, which addresses incapacity for mental disorders. Nevertheless, the co-prosecution lawyers view the defense's argument as flimsy and insist that the murder charge be maintained.

What is behind the term insidiousness?

The murder characteristic of treachery, which plays a central role in this trial, describes situational aspects of the commission of the crime. According to current statements, a perpetrator is insidious if he consciously exploits the defenselessness of his unsuspecting victim. It is not enough that the victim is in a vulnerable condition; Rather, there must also be a reprehensible breach of trust between the perpetrator and the victim in order to fully affirm insidiousness. The literature, among other things, provides an exciting definition: Is a spouse of a long-term abuser who murders their sleeping partner innocent? Such questions have to be discussed again and again in courtrooms. The requirements for the concepts of guilelessness and defenselessness are essential.

In the present case, it remains to be seen to what extent the experts' assessments will influence the court's decision. The viewer-friendly sessions of the trial promise an exciting picture of the legal dispute in Stade in the coming days.