The trial day began with motions by the three assigned counsel Heer, Stahl and Sturm that they be relieved of their duties. As for the \u201creasons\u201d for these motions, they simply relied on a \u201cprofessional affirmation\u201d in their capacity as lawyers that \u201cserious reasons\u201d, as required by the courts for relieving assigned counsel, existed. They claimed not to be able to say more due to attorney-client privilege, adding that they were unable to counsel their client to waive it. Counsel Sturm added that Zsch\u00e4pe was \u201cpartially\u201d aware of the reasons. After several interruptions, statements by parties etc., the presiding judge finally denied the motions.
\nIt was clear that the motions were without a chance of success simply as it did not contain any reasons. Clearly, the professional affirmations of counsel were not sufficient \u2013 first of all, it is quite unclear whether it is possible to affirm a legal conclusion \u2013 that \u201cserious reasons\u201d exist. And most importantly, just a few weeks ago and in reaction to Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s motion to relieve counsel Sturm of her duties, the three had claimed in detail that there were no reasons for relieving her.<\/p>\n
It is unclear whether this motion is only aimed at restoring the remaining professional reputation of Heer, Stahl and Sturm, already seriously damaged by the undignified spectacle concerning Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s motion, or whether the three were actually hoping to be relieved. What is clear is that they had done all they could to ensure that their motion remained unsuccessful. This was especially the case with regard to counsel Heer, who in his motion had claimed that he had warned the presiding judge several times that \u201csuch conditions could come about\u201d, but that these motions had not been heeded. However, when asked what that meant, he refused to specify his cryptic remarks in any way, even after the presiding judge reminded him that these conversations could hardly be covered by attorney-client privilege. Newly assigned fourth counsel Grasel stated that Zsch\u00e4pe chose not to comment, thus doing what he could to ensure the motions remained unsuccessful.<\/p>\n
After the lunch break, the presiding judge reacted to this contradictory behavior by providing a short summary of several discussions of the court with the three counsel. Inter alia, they had stated that they had so far been able to \u201cset boundaries\u201d for their client, but that after the assignment of a fourth counsel, they might be unable to continue to do so and that they feared further motions to be relieved. Of course, these ex parte discussions about \u201csetting boundaries\u201d for the client show an understanding of criminal defense which is impossible to square with that which the three claimed in their motions today \u2013 even aside from the fact that most of what was talked about was also subject to attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n
Counsel Grasel instead referred to a motion his client had made that morning in which she asked the court to decide on the defense seating order since counsel Heer refused to give up his seat directly in front of the judges\u2019 bench. Given the lack of reasons for the motions, it was unsurprising that the reasons given by the presiding judge for denying them were also rather brief. Given the denial of the motions, Heer, Stahl and Sturm remain in the trial and there is no reason to fear that the trial might have to be interrupted and started anew.<\/p>\n