#779 Vergewaltigungsprozess in Chur: Bundesgericht stoppt Berufungsverhandlung in letzter Minute

·23 min·2 clips

The Federal Court stopped a rape trial in Chur just days before it was scheduled, citing a critical procedural violation.

The episode opens with hosts Duri and Gregor introducing a specific Federal Court decision from March 13, 2026. This decision approved a complaint and stopped a scheduled appeal hearing for a rape case in Chur set for March 17-18, 2026. The defendant, a former Graubünden administrative director, had been convicted of sexual assault in a first-instance trial in November 2024. The appeal was filed shortly after, but the Graubünden Supreme Court set the appeal hearing date for March 2026 without first checking the availability of the defendant's chosen defense lawyer, Tanja. The defense lawyer could not attend because she had a prior obligation as a necessary defender at the federal level. The hosts detail the timeline: the Graubünden Supreme Court invited parties in December 2025, the defense sought a postponement in late December, and the court proposed 11 alternative dates in January 2026. However, the defense had already filed a complaint with the Federal Court. The Federal Court's decision found that the lower court failed to appropriately consider the availability of the necessary defense. It emphasized that in a premeditated sexual offense case, the relationship of trust between the defendant and their chosen lawyer is crucial, and forcing a change of lawyer mid-process is particularly problematic. The hosts discuss their own experiences with courts pressing dates without consultation, sharing an anecdote about the Maloja Regional Court. They debate the balance between the constitutional principle of speedy proceedings and the fundamental right to a defense. They note that the Graubünden court seemed to prioritize speed over defense rights, which the Federal Court corrected. The hosts explain the legal rarity of challenging an interim decision, noting it requires showing an irreparable legal disadvantage. They credit defense lawyer Tanja for successfully navigating this high hurdle. The conversation touches on whether judges have sufficient experience in criminal defense to understand these nuances. Later, they briefly mention a novel aspect: the Federal Court's decision was digitally signed and sent by email, which they find notable compared to traditional postal notifications. The episode concludes by reiterating the importance of courts considering defense availability, even when aiming to accelerate proceedings.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Auf dem Weg als Anwält:in