On Thursday 24 April, after a year-long criminal trial, which began in January 2024 and consisted of more than 50 court hearings, German lawyer and co-founder of Corona Investigative Committee (CIC), Dr Reiner Fuellmich, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, repayment of two allegedly embezzled sums of money (€200K and €500K) plus court fees.
The verdict, despite the length of the trial, still came as a surprise to all those who had followed the case extensively. “Any decision arriving within a week, will prove the verdict has long been written,” a supporter said.
A day earlier, the court for Lower Saxony in Göttingen had extended the limit for Fuellmich’s closing speech from noon to 3 pm. Fuellmich’s lawyer, Katja Wörmer, had been told to submit her challenge to the impartiality of the entire chamber, before 4pm. After Fuellmich’s final statement, however, the chairing judge, Carsten Schindler, unexpectedly announced that the hearing would continue at 5pm.
During the last ten months, at least, the hearings have rarely exceeded 3.30 pm, let alone recommence at a later time.
At around 4.45 pm, the thirty or so spectators, who had been speculating in various cafés about what might follow, were taken by surprise again, when the court sent out a press release. It stated that the verdict would be announced at 5 pm, if no surprises would get in the way. All major German media organisations were copied into the email.
As it transpired later, another Chamber, meanwhile, had been busy judging and rejecting Wörmer’s impartiality challenge.
Two years and eight months for a dwindled embezzlement charge
Seemingly in haste to deliver the verdict, Schindler started his preliminary comments, while forgetting to officially open the hearing. Two filming journalists were told not to publish what they had just recorded.
In rapid succession, Schindler read out the chamber’s conclusions. The prison sentence was made up of a sentence of two years and five months for the alleged embezzled sum of €200K and a sentence of three years and five months for the amount of €500K. Because both offences are similar in nature, the total duration was “reduced” to three years and nine months, in line with the German prosecution’s demand.
The sentence is heavier than it already seems, because the court decided not to deduct five of the eighteen months Fuellmich spent in pre-trial detention. The reason given for this ‘extra time’ was that the defence had needlessly prolonged and delayed the trial. Fuellmich, who has been in custody since 13 October 2024, will therefore have to serve two years and eight months, instead of two years and three months.
Six months of isolation not taken into account
The court did not seem to consider the fact that, if Fuellmich indeed deliberately protracted the case, he has mainly disadvantaged himself, by extending the time spent in custody (while he was still hopeful of an acquittal). What is more, the conditions on remand are much stricter than those for serving a sentence after conviction.
Neither did the five judges take into account the six months Fuellmich spent in isolation, his hands and feet being chained and cuffed, while accompanied by heavily armed guards, during transport. Isolation, in Germany, is normally limited to 15 days. Being locked up for six months without having contact with fellow prisoners has been qualified as psychological torture by former UN rapporteur Nils Melzer.
The court spent few, if any, words on the violation of various procedural steps, by the German Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM), “deportation” of Fuellmich by Mexico paid for by the German government, nor on the accused himself being robbed of over 1 million Euros, by one of the initiators of his prosecution, Marcel Templin.
The refusal to allow Fuellmich to say goodbye to his dying mother, last year, also seems not to have been factored into the sentence.
With Fuellmich’s time in isolation adding up to ten times the norm, one could argue that his six months in isolation should count for sixty. He should, in fact, have been freed, on 24 April, and been compensated for the disproportionate and harsh treatment. This being a highly political case, however, Fuellmich ‘walking out free’ and being able to speak publicly again, is precisely what the German government wants to avoid at all costs.
Fuellmich awaits a second trial
Meanwhile, a second trial against the German lawyer, based on sixteen charges, is being prepared. Each of these charges consists of a payment of approximately €28k (including VAT) to Fuellmich’s (former) law firm for CIC-related work: IT and organisational tasks, such as communications with sponsors and guests. These charges were rejected thrice, previously – by the Chief Public Prosecutor in Göttingen, a Public Prosecutor in Berlin and the third time by the current chamber in Göttingen.
Prosecutor John appealed the court’s dismissal of the sixteen charges. Half a year later, when the accusation of embezzlement had all but evaporated, the high court in Braunschweig decided to allow the charges as grounds for a follow-up trial. The decision, published on 6 November last year, hardly received media attention in the turmoil of Donald Trump winning the U.S.-elections.
The second trial is said to be allocated to the same chamber of judges as presided the first. The first and now concluded trial was, initially, given to another chamber, but chambers were switched, at the last minute. Given the harsh sentence Schindler and his colleagues settled on and the similarity of the alleged crimes in both trials, there is little hope the court will come to an impartial judgement Fuellmich in the second case.
Redefining ‘good behaviour’
In Germany, prisoners who have shown their good behaviour, usually only serve half their prison sentence. What the authorities will define as ‘good behaviour’ in Fuellmich’s case, is anyone’s guess. For example, Fuellmich was put in isolation for allegedly “inciting” other prisoners. This incitement consisted of him providing legal advice to fellow inmates and arranging reliable lawyers – which would count as ‘good behaviour’ in other than governments’ circles.
Lawfare intensifies
Within a week after the verdict, Fuellmich has had to submit his appeal. When these proceedings, or the second trial initiated by the German prosecution, will begin, is not yet known. Clear is, however, that his Fuellmich and his lawyers await an exceptionally intense time in different courts.
At the time of writing, the verdict had not yet been published. Schindler is known as a “fast moving” judge, but it is assumed that the court will take its time to formulate the verdict in such a way, that it will be able to withstand any criticism by the high court, during the appeal proceedings.
No smithing of words, however, shielded the chamber form the public gallery’s criticism, on April 24. Those who had come to learn about the abuse of justice during this trial, stood up and hollered, ‘Not in my name!’
The Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court in Göttingen, sensing there was no point in shouting “Order!”, quickly disappeared into the room behind the court, their black robes flowing. What remained of ‘justice’ was Reiner Fuellmich – handcuffed, shaken, but beaming and visibly boyed by the audience’s protest . Western rule of law could not have been more painfully, aptly portrayed.