imbroglio around the role of Juan Branco in the defense of Piotr Pavlenski

After 36 hours of judicial entanglement, the defense of Piotr Pavlenski and Alexandra de Taddeo cleared up. Placed in police custody, Sunday, February 16, as part of the investigation into the dissemination of intimate videos having led Benjamin Griveaux to withdraw his candidacy for the Mairie de Paris, the couple could not benefit from the support of the lawyer they had requested, Juan Branco.

In question, the close ties that the adviser of Julian Assange maintains with his new clients. Raised by investigators and the prosecution, this question required, Monday, the intervention of the President of Paris, Olivier Cousi. Since the prosecution does not have the jurisdiction to remove a lawyer, only the president of the bar can oppose his appointment.

The judicial muddle begins on Saturday afternoon when Piotr Pavlenski placed in police custody for “willful violence with a weapon”. This case, separate from the one involving Benjamin Griveaux’s invasion of privacy, involved a stabbing fight on December 31. That evening, Piotr Pavlenski and Alexandra de Taddeo were invited to spend Christmas Eve with a friend of Juan Branco, whose parents live in a large apartment on boulevard Saint-Germain, in the 6^e district of Paris.

Cited as a witness in this case, Juan Branco warns the Russian activist that he will not be able to defend him for these acts of violence, explains to World the author of the anti-Macron test Twilight (Au Diable Vauvert, 2019). The Russian performer then contacted criminal lawyer Marie-Alix Canu-Bernard.

The next day, Sunday, when the couple is again placed in police custody, this time in the case involving Benjamin Griveaux, M^e Canu-Bernard is again called upon to defend them. She decides to give up, evoking The Obs of the “Reasons covered by professional secrecy”.

A possible conflict of interest

This is where Juan Branco comes in. Even before the publication of the intimate videos, Piotr Pavlenski had “Consulted” the essayist for “Have a legal opinion on the situation” and “Check reliability” of the video before it is broadcast, according to the latter to several media. The former candidate in the legislative elections for La France insoumise then appeared as the couple’s natural advocate.

During his hearing Sunday, after M withdraws^e Canu-Bernard, Piotr Pavlenski orally requests that M^e Branco represents him on this file, refusing that any other lawyer be appointed, according to The Obs, information confirmed at World by M^e Branco. In application of Article 63-3-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, devoted to “conflicts of interest” between a lawyer and a person in custody, the request of the Russian activist was not accepted, reports a judicial source to World.

According to this law:

“In the event of a difference of opinion between the lawyer and the judicial police officer or the public prosecutor on the existence of a conflict of interest, the judicial police officer or the public prosecutor seizes the chairman who may designate another defender. “

When he arrives at the premises of the Paris judicial police to meet the man he already names his “Customer” Russian, M^e Branco is therefore denied access to the two detained. And is indignant: “In this exceptional case, the Paris public prosecutor’s office has just made an extraordinary decision: it objects to my representing my client. “ A decision “Rarity”, abounds Jean Castelain, who was never confronted with this situation when he was president of the bar of Paris between 2010 and 2011, he informs USAinformations.

denouncing “An unprecedented and very serious breach of the right of defense”, M^e Branco specifies that the commissioner in charge of representing the word of the Paris prosecutor’s office told him that he was “Cited in the file but not questioned”. Element which could theoretically support a possible conflict of interest. An argument refuted by M^e Branco: “Obviously I am cited in a case that concerns my client”, he explains thus to World.

“A lawyer is free to defend himself”

This justification of the prosecution intervenes when government believes Piotr Pavlenski has “Probably been helped” in his enterprise of destabilization of power. Piotr Pavlenski “Can’t be the only one involved”, Griveaux’s lawyer Richard Malka said on Saturday, adding that the investigation “Will cover the whole range of offenses which have been carried out by the author of the initial broadcast and by those who resumed these broadcasts”.

Strong opponent of Emmanuel Macron, M^e Branco has denied any involvement in the disclosure of the video since the start of the case, but considered that this political gesture was “Legitimized by the peopolization of Mr. Griveaux’s campaign”.

To rule on his case, the President of Paris therefore met on Monday morning with M^e Branco. Explaining, Monday at a press briefing, that ” it is normal for a lawyer to come and see his chairman when he encounters an ethical problem “, he points out that“A lawyer is free to defend himself”.

“He alone must appreciate in conscience and with regard to the ethical rules if he can and if he must continue to defend a client”, continues the president. ” As things stand, I do not have enough information to make a decision on the prosecution by Mr. Juan Branco of the defense of Mr. Pavlenski “He explains in a press release, specifying that he decided to open an ethical investigation to determine if M^e Branco can ” pursue in the interest of his client and in compliance with the rules of the profession the defense of Mr. Pavlenski “.

Pending the outcome of this investigation, M^e Branco provides World that he is still “Formally the lawyer for Piotr Pavlenski and Alexandra de Taddeo”. To ensure the defense of the couple in the event that the prosecution again opposes the intervention of M^e Branco, the President of Paris, has appointed two lawyers to accompany the essayist, Dominique Tricaud and Cédric Labrousse.

Monday evening, Piotr Pavlenski and Alexandra de Taddeo were presented in court for the opening of judicial information Tuesday morning, without having been able to talk to a lawyer until now.

–