Use of defense counsel’s written submissions to assess defendant’s changed admission behavior in subsequent psychiatric evaluation

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant’s appeal as unfounded, upholding the Landgericht Berlin’s conviction and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the appeal. The dispute centered on a procedural challenge (Verfahrensrüge) alleging that the trial court improperly relied on the contents of defense counsel’s written submissions as direct admissions by the defendant. The court determined that no legal error occurred because the trial court did not treat the written pleadings as the defendant’s oral statement, but rather used them to assess the defendant’s altered admission behavior during a subsequent psychiatric evaluation by an expert witness. This evaluation was necessary because defense counsel had objected to the provisional results of an initial psychiatric exploration conducted prior to the main proceedings. The decisive legal basis was the principle that considering such written materials to contextualize and evaluate expert testimony regarding the defendant’s mental state does not violate procedural rights, distinguishing the action from impermissibly treating defense counsel's written arguments as judicial confessions.