Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:19:27.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plea Bargaining in Criminal Proceedings: Changes to Criminal Defense Counsel Practice as a Result of the German Constitutional Court Verdict of 19 March 2013?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Alexander Schemmel ,
Christian Corell  and
Natalie Richter

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Numerous comments have already been published on the verdict of the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of 19 March 2013 (2 BvR 2628/10, 2 BvR 2883/10, 2 BvR 2155/11) regarding the constitutionality of the legal regulations on plea bargaining in criminal proceedings under the central provision of § 257c of the (German Code of Criminal Procedure) (StPO). The assessments range from perplexity, “mixed, but with modestly auspicious overtones” and “provisional legal security” to agreement with the decision, although only “in the approach, but not in every point of the justification.”

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 1: Special issue - Plea Bargains in Germany , 01 February 2014 , pp. 43 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Fezer, Gerhard, Vom (noch) verfassungsgemäßen Gesetz über den defizitären Vollzug zum verfassungswidrigen Zustand, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung im Stafrecht [HRRS] 117 (2013), available at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/archiv/13-04/hrrs-4-13.pdf; Christoph Knauer, Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zur strafprozessualen Verständigung—Paukenschlag oder Papiertiger?, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 433, 435 (2013); Hans Kudlich, Grenzen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit—die Entscheidung des BVerfG zur strafprozessualen Verständigung, NStZ 379 (2013); Hans Kudlich, Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu den strafprozessualen Absprachen—Konsequenzen für den Gesetzgeber? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 162 (2013) Andreas Mosbacher, Praktische Auswirkungen der Entscheidung des BVerfG zur Verständigung, Neue Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-, Steuer- und Unternehmensstrafrecht [NZWiSt] 201 (2013); Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, Entscheidungsbesprechung zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [ZIS] 212 (2013), available at http://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2013_4_748.pdf; Thomas Trück, Strafprozessuale Verständigungen auf dem Prüfstand des BVerfG—mehr Fragen als Antworten, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsstrafrecht und Haftung im Unternehmen [ZWH] 169 (2013).Google Scholar

2 Meyer-Goßner: Strafprozessordnung, § 257c marginal note 1 (2003); Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, commentary in Löwe-Rosenberg: Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungesetz, § 257c marginal note 1 (Volker Erb et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

3 Knauer, supra note 1, at 433.Google Scholar

4 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 218.Google Scholar

5 Peters, rescriptum 131, 136 (2013).Google Scholar

6 Mosbacher, supra note 1.Google Scholar

7 Knauer regards this as the most decisive intervention in the system of the criminal procedure code by the BVerfG. Knauer, supra note 1, at 436. Kudlich speaks of far-reaching criminal procedure statements. Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381. Mosbacher discusses the most problematic and certainly momentous statements of the BVerfG. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar

8 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, § 257c marginal note. For a summary of the judicial rulings before the BVerfG verdict, see Folker Bittmann, Übersicht über die Rechtsprechung zum Verständigungsgesetz seit 2010, ZWH 260, 260 (2013).Google Scholar

9 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Aug. 28, 1997, 195, 206.Google Scholar

10 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 13. Describes the establishment of plea bargaining as a step backwards, which eliminated the achievements of the reformed criminal procedure in an unreflective manner.Google Scholar

11 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Mar. 19, 2013, 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar

12 Thomas Fischer, commentary in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, § 244 marginal note 30 (C.H. Beck ed., 2013).Google Scholar

13 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Mar. 03, 2005, 40, 47.Google Scholar

14 Ambos, Kai & Ziehn, Pamela, commentary in Strafprozessordnung, § 257c marginal note 22 (Henning Radtke & Olaf Hohmann, eds., 2011); Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 29 e.E., 73.Google Scholar

15 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice], Aug. 28, 1997, 40, 47.Google Scholar

16 Frank Saliger, Absprachen im Strafprozess an den Grenzen der Rechtsfortbildung, Juristische Schulung [JuS] 8 (2006). Saliger's work is referring to: Hans-Joachim Weider, Strafprozessuale Vergleich 540 (2000); Peter Rieß, NStZ 99 (2000); Thomas Weigend, Eine Prozessordnung für abgesprochene Urteile, NStZ 57, 59 (1999).Google Scholar

17 Id. Google Scholar

18 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Mar. 03, 2005, 40, 63. See also, Gerd Pfeiffer & Rolf Hannich, commentary in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, marginal note 29h (C.H. Beck ed., 2008).Google Scholar

19 Petra Velten, commentary in Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, §§ 257b–257c ff. marginal note 10 (2012).Google Scholar

20 Karsten Altenhain, Ina Hagemeier & Michael Haimerl, Die Vorschläge zur gesetzlichen Regelung der Urteilabsprachen im Lichte aktuelle rechstatsächlicher Erkentnisse, NStZ 71, 72 (2007). For this study interviews were conducted with 142 lawyers specializing in commercial criminal law in the period from May to October 2005 on their experience with sentence plea bargaining. All the presiding judges of the Commercial Crime Courts in North Rhine Westphalia and 50 public prosecutors selected at random with commercial criminal law departments and specialist lawyers with experience in commercial criminal law. They were all surveyed in an anonymized form on plea bargain practice and in particular asked whether and to what extent the guidelines of the BGH had been implemented.Google Scholar

21 Velten, supra note 19.Google Scholar

22 Altenhain, Hagemeier & Haimerl, supra note 20, at 76, n.55Google Scholar

23 Id. at 76Google Scholar

24 Id. Google Scholar

25 Id. at 73.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 77.Google Scholar

27 Id. Google Scholar

28 Id. at 72.Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 Meyer-Gossner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 3.Google Scholar

31 Id. at marginal note 13 f.Google Scholar

32 Id. at marginal note 12; Gerwin Moldenhauer, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht 250 (Carsten Momsen, Thomas Grützner & Karsten Altenhain et. al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

33 Meyer-Goßner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 16; Moldenhauer, supra note 32, at 251; Pfeiffer & Hannich, supra note 18, Introduction, marginal note 29g.Google Scholar

34 See Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 38 f.Google Scholar

35 Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [BT] 16/11736, 11, available at http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/123/1612310.pdf.Google Scholar

36 Meyer-Gossner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 16.Google Scholar

37 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 48. For this purpose a total of 190 judges in North Rhine Westphalia who dealt with criminal cases were surveyed of whom 117 worked as criminal court judges or presided over lay judges and of whom 73 presided in criminal divisions. As a control group, 68 public prosecutors and 76 criminal law specialist lawyers were surveyed.Google Scholar

38 2 BvR 2628/10, para. 49.Google Scholar

39 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 49.Google Scholar

40 BGH, BeckRS 2010, 27615; BGH, BeckRS 2010, 28945; BGH, BeckRS 2011, 22742.Google Scholar

41 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 64.Google Scholar

42 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 71.Google Scholar

43 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 75.Google Scholar

44 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96 f.Google Scholar

45 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 99.Google Scholar

46 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 100.Google Scholar

47 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 116.Google Scholar

48 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 118.Google Scholar

49 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 119.Google Scholar

50 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 121.Google Scholar

51 Alexander Ignor, Holger Matt, Gunter Weider, commentary in Münchener Anwaltshandbuch Strafverteidigung § 13 marginal note 32 (Widmaier et. al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 Sommer, Ulriche, Der moderne Strafverteidiger und die neuen Deal-Strategien, Deutscher Anwalt Verein [AnwBl] 197 (2010).Google Scholar

54 Satzger, Helmut, commentary in Handbuch des Fachanwalts Strafrecht pt. 8 ch. 3 marginal note 5 (Jan Bockemühl ed., 2009).Google Scholar

55 Döllen, Armin von, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht 280f (Carsten Momsen et. al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

56 See Hans Dahs, Handbuch des Strafverteidigers, marginal note 296 (2005). See generally, Alfred Dierlamm, commentary in Handbuch des Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrechts 1700 (Heinz-Bernd Wabnitz & Thomas Janovsky eds., 2007).Google Scholar

57 Sommer, supra note 53, at 198.Google Scholar

58 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 36.Google Scholar

59 Id. at marginal note 37.Google Scholar

60 Id. at marginal note 49.Google Scholar

61 See Velten, supra note 19, § 257c marginal note 48 f (calling for generalization).Google Scholar

62 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 46; Hans-Joachim Weider, Strafverteidiger Forum (StraFo) 406, 408 (2003).Google Scholar

63 Fischer, Zeitung für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 249, 251 (2009).Google Scholar

64 Diessner, Annika, Der Deal nach alter Schule im Lichte des Verständigungsgesetzes—eine strafrechtliche Risikoanalyse, Strafverteidiger 43, 48 (2011); See also Imme Roxin, commentary in Beck'sches Rechtsanwaltshandbuch, § 52 marginal note 54 (Hans-Ulrich Büchting & Benno Heussen eds., 2011). For more on the aspect of collusion, see generally Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Sept. 1, 1992, 345, 348.Google Scholar

65 Diessner, supra note 64.Google Scholar

66 Id. at 48 f.Google Scholar

67 Schlothauer, Reinhold & Weider, Hans-Joachim, Das Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Strafverteidiger 600, 606 (2009); see also Stefan Kirsch, Die gesetzliche Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Strafverteidiger Forum [StraFo] 96, 101 (2010).Google Scholar

68 Not without reason, Stuckenberg speaks of “haggling luck” and refers to Kant's Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, which warns against giving away justice for any old price. See Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal notes 3, 9; See also, Immanuel Kant, Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (1798).Google Scholar

69 Dierlamm, supra note 56, at 1685.Google Scholar

70 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 54 f; Pfeiffer & Hannich, supra note 18, at marginal note 29i. These articles justifiably deal with civil law claims to damages.Google Scholar

71 Dahs, supra note 56, at marginal note 497.Google Scholar

72 Sommer, supra note 53, at 199.Google Scholar

73 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar

74 Id. Google Scholar

75 Trück, supra note 1, at 172.Google Scholar

76 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203.Google Scholar

77 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar

78 Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203; Trück, supra note 1, at 172.Google Scholar

79 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar

80 Cf. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203.Google Scholar

81 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 79.Google Scholar

82 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar

83 Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [BT] 16/12310, 13 available at http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/123/1612310.pdf.Google Scholar

84 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar

85 Accord Knauer, supra note 1, at 435. This view is supported by Velten among others, admittedly based on the legal position before March 2013. See Velten, supra note 19, at marginal note 3, 30.Google Scholar

86 Trück, supra note 1, at 173.Google Scholar

87 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 91.Google Scholar

88 Dölling, Dieter, commentary in Gesamtes Strafrecht, preamble to § 1 StPO, marginal note 25 (Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge & Dieter Rössner eds., 2011).Google Scholar

89 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 85.Google Scholar

90 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar

91 Mosbacher, , supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar

92 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 75, 90, 115. See also, Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 77 (prior to March 2013).Google Scholar

93 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436. See also, Trück, supra note 1, at 172 (highlighting a contradiction to § 257b stop).Google Scholar

94 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 84.Google Scholar

95 Id. at marginal note 75.Google Scholar

96 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar

97 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381.Google Scholar

98 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 78.Google Scholar

99 Knauer, Likewise, supra note 1, at 435; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar

100 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 71. The trend was already evident prior to the Constitutional Court decision. Cf. Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 22.Google Scholar

101 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 70 f., 129.Google Scholar

102 Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; likewise, See also, Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 10, 41 (prior to March 2013).Google Scholar

103 Trück, supra note 1, at 170, 171; Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 17, n.69, marginal note 22, n.85; Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 23.Google Scholar

104 JUVE Rechtsmarkt, Feb. 2013, at 62.Google Scholar

105 Cf. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar

106 According to Mosbacher, the “necessary assertiveness” ought to be assured in practice. See Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar

107 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96 f.Google Scholar

108 Id. at marginal note 97.Google Scholar

109 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206; Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar

110 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Oct. 20, 2010, NStZ 2011, 592 at 593.Google Scholar

111 Bittmann, supra note 8, at 265.Google Scholar

112 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96.Google Scholar

113 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205 f.Google Scholar

114 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 215.Google Scholar

115 In accordance with 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 78, an incorrect negative test may be a punishable offence in accordance with § 348 StGB. Stuckenberg considers this to be doubtful as the record of the proceedings is no official document and therefore has no evidential value for or against anyone as § 274 StPO only applies to appeal proceedings. Id. Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381 (referring also to § 339 StGB).Google Scholar

116 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 98.Google Scholar

117 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar

118 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Jan. 2, 1955, [BGHSt] 7, 162 (established case law).Google Scholar

119 Cf. Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar

120 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, § 271 marginal note 77.Google Scholar

121 According to Mosbacher, this must also be seen in the context of the “inseparable unity” of formal obligations and settlement. See Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar

122 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 124, 127.Google Scholar

123 Id. at marginal note 99.Google Scholar

124 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381 (including in comparison to § 136 (1), sentence 2 StPO et al.).Google Scholar

125 Michael Tsambikakis & Joachim Kretschmer, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht in der Praxis, 1056 (Marcus Böttger ed., 2011).Google Scholar

126 Josephine Scharnberg, Die Absprache im Strafverfahren—historische Entwicklung, heutiger Diskussionsstand und Entwürfe zu einer gesetzlichen Regelung, 31 (2010).Google Scholar

127 For acceleration and eliminatory effects, see also Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 17; Huber, NStZ 530, 533 (1996); Armin von Döllen, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht, 280 (Carsten Momsen & Thomas Grützner eds., 2013).Google Scholar

128 See also Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar

129 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar

130 Id. at 215.Google Scholar

131 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar

132 Overview also in Werner Beulke, Strafprozessrecht, marginal note 15 (2010).Google Scholar