The 75th day of the Block-Prozess began under heightened tension as Christina Blocks former defense attorney, Otmar Kury, took the stand. His appearance drew immediate attention, not only for his role in the high-profile trial but for his dramatic entry into the courtroom. Dressed in his signature gray suit and carrying a metallic briefcase, Kury walked down the central aisle of the courtroom, defying protocol that typically requires witnesses to approach from the side. His presence immediately set the stage for a clash over legal obligations and courtroom decorum.
Kury opened by stating he would not speak. Yet, he soon broke from that silence, citing his duty to uphold professional secrecy under § 43a Abs. 2 of the Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung (BRAO). As Block’s attorney, he was bound to maintain confidentiality regarding all matters related to her case. However, he argued that the events under discussion occurred over two years prior, making them subject to his current legal review and potential criminal liability under § 203 Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) if disclosed improperly.
Judge Isabel Hildebrandt intervened, granting defense attorney Gül Pinar the opportunity to question Kury. Pinar, who had requested Kury’s testimony, hesitated before stepping forward. Kury, unshaken, invoked his right to remain silent under § 53 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 3 of the Strafprozessordnung (StPO). The judge then attempted to press him on the events of January 5, 2024, when Kury transported Blocks children back to the police—a detail central to the prosecution’s case. Her request sparked a heated exchange with Judge Bott, who challenged the court’s handling of the matter, arguing that Kury’s silence should absolve him from further questioning.
Court Mandates Written Evidence Requests
The courtroom erupted in tension as Kury, undeterred by the judge’s warnings, continued speaking. You cannot compel me to give statements without invitation, he declared, adding that certain claims he wished to refute, specifically, allegations of a police altercation, were not protected by his confidentiality obligations. The judge, visibly frustrated, ordered him to leave the courtroom.
Related Post: Court to rule on mask procurement dispute
Following his departure, the court addressed Judge Bott’s objection. Prosecutor Mona Paul acknowledged that Kury’s prior representation created a broad confidentiality obligation but noted that such secrecy does not inherently preclude testimony. The court ultimately ruled that Kury could not be compelled to testify, leaving the proceedings in disarray. Meanwhile, the judge announced a procedural shift: evidence requests must now be submitted in writing under § 257a StPO, the so-called Maulkorb-paragraph, aimed at curbing procedural delays. The move drew criticism from defense attorneys, who argued it disproportionately targeted them and undermined the principle of oral proceedings.
Defendants Share Personal Histories
The court justified the measure as necessary due to unusual procedural conduct by participants, citing over 70 main hearings since mid-August with numerous applications. Critics, including Dr. Marko Voß, contended that their conduct did not warrant such a drastic intervention, while Dr. David Rieks called the rule an exceptional provision whose constitutionality was questionable. Legal scholars have long debated § 257a StPOs compatibility with the principle of oral proceedings, arguing it risks violating legal clarity requirements. The court acknowledged the controversy but stood by its decision, noting that appeals could only be made through revision to the Federal Court of Justice.
IT Evidence and Personal Testimonies Shape Final Stages
The trial shifted toward personal testimonies from the defendants, marking the approach to closing arguments. The court rejected requests for partial closure of proceedings, deeming the testimonies unlikely to explore intimate details. Defendants like Gerhard Delling and Christina Block shared personal histories, educational backgrounds, career trajectories, and familial ties, to contextualize their involvement. These accounts highlighted the profound personal toll of the legal battle, as all defendants grappled with disrupted lives and public scrutiny.
Court’s Procedural Measures and Defense Disputes
The court justified its use of § 257a StPO for written evidence requests due to unusual conduct, citing over 70 main hearings since mid-August with numerous applications. Defense attorney Bott retracted prior extensive requests after client consultation.
