Today the court first heard the prosecution\u2019s response to the motions for evidence brought by the Wohlleben defence in the week before the Easter break. Also discussed was the announcement by victims\u2019 counsel for the Yozgat family to summon an expert witness on what secret service officer Temme must have observed of the murder of Halit Yozgat (see the report of\u00a05 April 2017<\/a>). The federal prosecutors had stated their opinion that victims\u2019 counsel generally did not have a right to summon expert witnesses themselves, victims\u2019 counsel had replied in detail. The court has not yet made a determination on this issue.<\/p>\n The court rejected further motions for evidence brought by victims\u2019 counsel, above all the motion concerning state responsibility for the \u201cattack after the attack\u201d, the investigations and publicly voiced suspicions against the victims of the NSU bombing attack in the Keupstra\u00dfe in Cologne (see the report of\u00a07 March 2017<\/a>). Interestingly, the decision can be read as showing that the court agreed with the applicants\u2019 contention that the state was responsible for this \u201cattack after the attack\u201d: \u201cIt cannot be assumed that several German state agencies, partly against better judgment, do not consider findings in their investigations and statements and rather inflict further damage on the victims of the attack through their actions, partly against their own better knowledge. The accused [if convicted] could not have foreseen such a course of events.\u201d<\/p>\n