In Fabian murder trial, defense refuses cross-examination

Background to the proceedings

The case has occupied the judiciary in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern for months. The boy’s body was found at the pond near Klein Upahl. The public prosecutor’s office accuses the defendant of being responsible for the child’s death.

By refusing to allow a cross-examination, the defendant is foregoing the opportunity to be questioned directly by the public prosecutor’s office or by co-plaintiffs during the main trial. The court had previously been required to rule on whether such questioning was permissible.

The proceedings at Rostock Regional Court have been held in public for weeks. According to information from the proceedings, co-plaintiffs in the trial include relatives of the murdered boy. Defendant Gina H. has communicated largely through her lawyers since the trial began.

Legal significance of the cross-examination

Observers view the refusal to allow a cross-examination as a tactical decision by the defense. It is intended to prevent the defendant from being confronted in the oral proceedings with incriminating statements that go beyond the written declaration.

The trial is being conducted at Rostock Regional Court before a criminal chamber. When a verdict could be handed down remains unknown. The chamber recently scheduled further hearing dates to question witnesses.

The investigation into the death of eight-year-old Fabian dragged on for several months. The body was discovered at the pond near Klein Upahl after information from the boy’s circle of acquaintances pointed to a possible crime.

Investigations and the evidence

According to its own statements, the public prosecutor’s office bases its charges on, among other things, evidence at the scene and testimony from witnesses from the boy’s personal circle. The defense had already expressed doubts about the prosecution’s presentation of the evidence at the start of the trial.

With regard to the further course of the proceedings, the court expects the witness questioning to continue. Whether the defendant herself will testify also remains unresolved after the refusal to allow the cross-examination.

Outlook for the rest of the trial

The case has attracted attention beyond the Rostock region. Spectators and media representatives have repeatedly gathered outside Rostock Regional Court to follow the progress of the proceedings.

At the end of the hearing day, it also became known that the defense had announced further applications for evidence. This could prolong the main trial further before the criminal chamber reaches a decision.