Today the court first read out two documents concerning the passports which Holger Gerlach had provided to B\u00f6hnhardt, Mundlos and Zsch\u00e4pe.<\/p>\n
The court then decided to consider the question of the forfeiture of money likely deriving from bank robberies in a separate procedure: Deciding on this question in the judgment would lead to further delays as a decision on the money found in the Fr\u00fchlingsstra\u00dfe apartment and the caravan in Eisenach would affect not only Zsch\u00e4pe, but also B\u00f6hnhardt and Mundlos and their heirs and as the latter would thus have to be heard. A decision on the money which, according to the indictment, had been given to Wohlleben and Gerlach and on the money found in the possession of Andr\u00e9 Eminger, meanwhile, also concerns Zsch\u00e4pe and thus could only be reached after the first decision. The court will now decide on these questions in written proceedings separate from the trial and judgment.<\/p>\n
The Wohlleben defense brought a motion for reconsideration, claiming to be \u201castonished\u201d that the court had not considered Carsten Schultze in its decision \u2013 after all he had stated that he had received the money used to buy the Ceska murder weapon from Wohlleben. The court has not yet decided on the motion for reconsideration.<\/p>\n
The \u201cold defense counsel\u201d of Zsch\u00e4pe, Heer, Stahl and Sturm, once more moved to be released from their position as assigned counsel. They also asked for a statement by the presiding judge on details of how last week\u2019s trial dates had been canceled. As to their release, they argued that Zsch\u00e4pe was by now being adequately defended by counsel Grasel and Borchert, who had after all announced that they would also make a closing statement \u2013 and that the court also held this to be true, as could be seen by the fact that it had canceled the trial days last week due to the absence of Grasel and Borchert even though Heer and Sturm had been present. Zsch\u00e4pe joined their motion. The federal prosecution quite rightly only brought a short reply, stating that this was far from satisfying any of the reasons foreseen by the law of criminal procedure for release of assigned counsel.<\/p>\n