Andrii/AdobeStock
After an argument, Mr. D.’s ex-girlfriend had six days of ITT and bruises all over her upper body. He, already convicted in 2021 for domestic violence, confirms that there was an altercation but denies being the cause of his injuries. Will the judges of the immediate appearances of Créteil believe it?
Mr. D. may well be the last defendant that the Créteil judges are hearing in immediate appearance at the end of the day, but the public benches are well stocked. Around ten friends of his came to support him, under the watchful eye of police officers who came as reinforcements to monitor the room. The gang is seated in a group, on the left side. On the right, two young women are there in support of Madame Y. who accuses the defendant of domestic violence.
The facts date back to the weekend: during the night from Saturday to Sunday, the couple met in Alfortville and Mr. D. took Mrs. Y’s phone. An argument broke out. He demanded that she follow him further, away from the apartment buildings, to explain herself, threatening to throw her belongings into the Seine if she did not. She followed him, each in their car, to the Créteil-Pompadour station. The argument continued and Mrs. Y. assures that the accused pulled her hair, slapped him, strangled him and broke his phone. She had six days of ITT (total incapacity for work). In a long sequence of terms that are abstruse for the uninitiated, the judge begins to read the report written by the forensic doctor. “I love the terms they use,” he comments before reading the essential sentence: “Somatic lesions compatible with the facts reported. »
At the president’s request, Mrs. Y. gets up to come and testify. She is dressed all in black, her hair slicked back into a ponytail, her voice soft.
— “Your sister testified to the police and said she doesn’t believe this is the first time. What about it? », asks the judge.
— Yes, it’s the first time.
— Why did you decide to file a complaint?
— My phone and my car were broken. I first went to see him after the argument to ask for repairs. He didn’t want to, that’s why I filed a complaint.
— What do you expect from this trial?
— I want to have the phone and the car repaired and no longer have contact with him. »
Mr. D. confirms that there was an argument. However, he denies having used such physical violence and assures that it was the complainant who tried to bite him to recover his phone.
The judge questions him: “Why does she have marks on her neck?
— Exactly, I asked her afterwards, when she came to my house, she told me it was the belt.
— Why not mention it during your hearing and during the confrontation? This is gold for your defense. I don’t understand.
— The OPJ asked you to answer just yes or no.
— I have your hearing in front of me, you did much more than just answer yes or no… The forensic doctor is his job and he’s talking about strangulation marks and not belt marks. And how do you explain the mark on the back?
— It was my bracelet that must have rubbed.
— When we listen to you, it doesn’t seem like much happened. But the list of injuries drawn up by the doctor is long. There are blue ones everywhere! How come ? »
Mr. D. does not answer the question and moves on, ensuring that he learned a lot in custody. “There are things that are not normal, like going through your partner’s phone,” he assures, sounding sincere.
The judge’s patience is running out, he moves on to the personality examination. Mr. D., a budding artist agent and assistant manager, has four mentions on his record including a conviction for domestic violence in 2021. Drugs too. “I was young, I needed money and I was stupid,” explains the 24-year-old defendant. “We are not going to repeat history. Everyone was young and needed to get out of drugs, it’s a constant, always the same story…”, the president annoys.
An hour after the start of the hearing, the prosecutor, until then slumped in his seat after this long afternoon, came out of his lethargy to point out that the defendant faced ten years in prison. He welcomes “the words of a victim who does not add to it, does not seek to reinforce it, says that it is the first time” and requires fifteen months in prison with continued detention, with no possible adjustment.
It’s the turn of Mr. D.’s lawyer, who begins by being indignant at having to plead at 7:43 p.m. a case that had first been referred to CPVCJ – summons by report with placement under judicial supervision. The prosecutor interrupts him by jumping up from his seat to justify this decision by the state of legal recidivism, which had initially escaped. “At that point, I can sit down again,” growls Mr. D.’s lawyer, pretending to return to his desk. He finally resumes his argument: “If we had had a little time, we could have argued that Madame used violence with a weapon by destination when she drove her car into that of Monsieur, rendering her own vehicle unusable… If we had time. » He is therefore content to say that this case is that of poverty, “human and intellectual” and urges the judges to “ [s’]rise above that.” For his client, “who measures the scope of his actions”, he requests a mixed sentence with probationary suspension.
After Mr. D.’s last words – “If I got jail time, it would kill me, I would never get over it” – the court retired to deliberate.
The defendant’s friends come out and wait in the hall. “Cap,” the clerk scolds when they enter the room to watch the deliberations. One of them finally turns around, out of superstition: “I’ve never seen a guy get out of prison, it’s better that I wait outside”, he whispers to his friends a little before the entrance of the judges. He probably did well. At 8:30 p.m., the president declared Mr. D. guilty of the acts with which he was accused and sentenced him to 18 months in prison, including 10 months suspended on probation and 8 months in prison, under an electronic bracelet.
An air of joy spreads throughout the room and on the face of the accused who escapes confinement in jail. “Keep listening to me instead of smiling at others,” the judge reprimands. Mr. D. is also subject to an obligation of care, a ban on contact with the victim or appearing at his home and compensation to be paid to him (3,350 euros in total).
As expected, the judge asks Mr. D. a few questions about his continued detention for the short week that separates him from his visit to the sentence enforcement judge:
“—There is no risk of escape?
— Non.
— No drugs?
— Non.
– Are you sure ? No risk of having a withdrawal crisis?
– On.
— Do you risk harming your physical safety while waiting to see the JAP?
— Five days, I think I’ll last, retorts Mr. D. with a big smile.
—It could be a little more, warns the president.
— If it’s more, I’m not sure I’ll be able to do it. »
Everyone laughs, except the magistrates. “It’s serious, 8 months in prison is a lot! », scolds the judge. Nothing to tarnish the relief of the defendant and his friends.
#Créteil #listen #happened #blue
