Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 4367/1995 AI generated

Judge previously convicted defendant cannot act as defense counsel in related criminal cases due to conflict of interest.

Case Number KKO 4367/1995
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the objection regarding a judge's eligibility to serve as defense counsel in a subsequent criminal case involving the same defendant. The court found that the judge had previously sentenced the defendant to imprisonment in a related matter, creating a direct conflict of interest under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Consequently, the judge was deemed unable to impartially represent the defendant's interests in the new proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 3, paragraph 3 of Chapter 15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; A judge who has previously sentenced a defendant to imprisonment is precluded from acting as defense counsel in subsequent criminal proceedings involving that same defendant due to the inherent conflict of interest.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial conflict of interest defense counsel eligibility Code of Judicial Conduct impartiality requirement prior sentencing impact

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 3, paragraph 3 of Chapter 15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
AI generated
kko-other_2021_1902
Supreme Court allows prior sentence consideration under Criminal Code s. 6.3 when new sentence is longer.
kko-other_1999_3482
Supreme Court allows reduction of sentence for prior conviction under Criminal Code Chapter 7 Section 6.
appeal_1983_helsinki__712
Court combined two suspended sentences and added a supplementary fine to the earlier one.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:5
Supreme Court allows prior foreign and domestic prison terms to count as sufficient punishment for new crimes.
kko-precedent_2004_130
Supreme Court allows sentence reduction only for prior life terms that could have been tried together with the current charge.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli toiminut tuomarina rikosasiassa, jossa B oli tuomittu vankeusrangaistukseen. Kysymys siitä, oliko A tällä perusteella esteellinen toimimaan myöhemmin B:n oikeudenkäyntiavustajana toisessa rikosasiassa, jossa tuli rikoslain 7 luvun 6 §:n nojalla määrättäväksi yhteinen vankeusrangaistus sekä siinä että aikaisemmassa asiassa B:n syyksi luetuista rikoksista.

OK 15 luku 3 § 3 mom