“Azerbaijani Defendant Acquitted in Trial Despite Alleged Threats and Negotiations with Judge”

They come, they don’t come – slightly modified, a 26-year-old defendant and the alleged victim played it over three days of negotiations with judge Anna Wiesflecker. The Azerbaijani is said to have threatened his short-term employer in Lanzendorf on October 6 last year that he would come with Chechen friends and stab him if he did not hand over the wages he was still entitled to.

Whatsapp messages should prove the threat. When the trial entered its first day of hearings, the transcript of the news was not yet available to the court. Which was not important because the defendant preferred not to appear at the Korneuburg Regional Court. Which is why the alleged victim who was present could not yet be questioned on the witness stand. He wanted to submit the message log anyway.

At the last minute, the accused turned the corner

So a second day of the process was needed. So that the judge wouldn’t get bored, the Azerbaijani showed up this time, but not the alleged victim. This is how Wiesflecker pieced together this negotiation, but still without the message protocol. On the other hand, the accused had more time to describe his view of things, which of course was a very innocent one. A third hearing had to fix it so that Wiesflecker could fix it.

When the main hearing was called, nobody appeared. Whereby, the 26-year-old’s legal assistant – Marius Garo – was present, who was “not amused” in view of the yawning emptiness in the court hallway: “I feel teased.” He found the judge’s understanding, but it didn’t change anything the facts. As soon as the fourth hearing was scheduled, the 26-year-old turned the corner – he was a little late.

That was a start, but it didn’t change the entrepreneur’s absence. This time, with the approval of the public prosecutor’s office, this problem was solved legally. The statement that the allegedly threatened person had made to the police could be read out with the consent of all parties. And then it was over very quickly. If testimony stands against testimony, there is a lack of evidence and the alleged victim does not participate in the proceedings, the judge could only come to one verdict: acquittal.