A hundred lawyers pleaded, for seven days, without always avoiding the pitfalls of the exercise. This sequence has mainly exposed their deep differences in the analysis of the debates.
by soren seelow
“O time, hang your flight! Ohhh time, suspend your flight …” From the first words, we understood that we were going to have to be patient when tackling the pleadings of the civil parties of the trial of The attack on July 14, 2016 in Nice. “O time, suspend your flight …”, said the lawyer who opened, Wednesday, November 23, this long choir argument which stretched over seven days. That day, eleven black dresses had succeeded each other at the helm.
At the end of this sequence, Thursday 1 er December, we had listened to nearly a hundred. The public prosecutor was more modest: the three magistrates of the national anti -terrorist prosecution estimated that one day would be enough to take place their indictment, scheduled for December 6. Lawyers of the eight accused will be satisfied for their part of three days.
This imbalance in the distribution of speaking times is the consequence of the number of victims of the bombing of the English promenade: 86 dead, more than 400 injured, and nearly 2,500 civil parties represented by some 130 lawyers, of which a hundred pleaded. The exercise was impossible: necessarily too long, obviously unequally, fatally redundant.
black dresses and red dresses
As at the trial of the attacks of November 13, 2015, this sequence woke up the questions about what must and may be a pleading of lawyers of civil parties to the trial of a mass killing. In an attempt to structure this repetition of speaking, sixty lawyers were therefore inspired by what had been done during this first mega terrorist trial by organizing themselves within a large collective argument.
At the opening, fifteen lawyers decided to support the public prosecutor’s support, for two days, their black dress against the lawyer’s red. Their colleagues then reserved their words to the victims, by placing on some major themes that had emerged during the testimonies of the civil parties.
But not all of them share the same sensitivity, nor the same analysis of the three months which have passed since the opening of the debates: “Some lawyers of civil parties are convinced of the guilt of the accused, others less, D ‘Others not at all, “summed up M e Claire Josserand-Schmidt, who preferred, with around thirty lawyers, to plead individually at the end of this sequence.
Lunar pleadings
The first two days of collective argument were therefore devoted to the bottom of the file, in a sort of pre-registration system worn by fifteen lawyers grouped within an informal “criminal pole”. But in their desire to overwhelm the accused, some have embarked on an incomprehensible escalation, carrying the charge far beyond what the prosecution will do.
You have 63.84% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.