Court proceedings in sexual crime cases are never pleasant—for anyone, really, not even for those who stand to make a lot of money by accusing someone of rape. I think it's easy to imagine all of this, but that's actually how things are in real life.

German Criminal Defense Lawyer—Acquittals in Rape Cases in several German Courts

Even cases that end with the defendant’s acquittal in a public court hearing are no fun for the defendant—they’re more like an ordeal. In my recent case before the Wuppertal Regional Court, which dragged on for weeks, the defendant was finally acquitted in August 2026 of the charge of rape (§ 177 StGB), but at first it looked very different to the spectators. Sitting in the dock was a successful entrepreneur charged with rape (§ 177 StGB) in a number of cases that were alleged to have occurred over the course of several months. The number of cases charged was not actually what made the trial so time-consuming. The real reason was rather that the prosecution had set the case on the wrong track, and that the court, unfortunately, continued down that track for quite some time at first.

In fact, during the preliminary investigation, the prosecution had already commissioned a psychological expert to assess the credibility of the incriminating witness testimony. And in his preliminary expert opinion during the preliminary investigation, the expert had already concluded that the testimony of the sole witness for the prosecution was credible; he presented this conclusion at the trial as well and stood by it.

The expert chosen and commissioned by the public prosecutor’s office during the preliminary investigation pursuant to § 161 StPO does not appear at the main trial as an “expert for the public prosecutor’s office,” but rather as an “expert for the court,” and serves there as a piece of evidence whose role is to provide and apply specialized expertise to assist in determining the truth. In this context, the examination of the expert witness during the main trial generally carries even greater significance than in the public prosecutor’s preliminary investigation. And already during his first examination at the main trial in Wuppertal, the expert witness explained in detail that, in his view, the testimony of the sole witness for the prosecution was entirely credible.

As defense counsel in Wuppertal Court, I had also brought a second expert witness with me to further assess the credibility of the testimony, and unfortunately, the court initially expended a great deal of energy on sidelining our expert witness and banishing him from the courtroom using the inappropriate measure of “exclusion of the public”—a course of action the court was forced to abandon only after several targeted motions by the defense. But in the end, that didn’t matter at all, because the court-appointed expert ultimately couldn’t withstand the defense’s attacks anyway. He hadn’t grasped the psychological dynamics of the witness for the prosecution at all. You could put it that way.

German Criminal Defense Lawyer on acquittal against the Expert Witness

But unlike the expert witness summoned by the court, both the prosecution and the court in Wuppertal eventually came to understand this, and the defendant was acquitted. The acquittal has also become final and unappealable.

For the defendant, this was a lengthy and stressful criminal trial that the court could have avoided during the preliminary proceedings by critically scrutinizing the expert opinion commissioned by the prosecution. The preliminary proceedings - carried out by the court prior to the opening of the main trial - serve as a filter (Sections 203, 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and also protect the accused from the otherwise unavoidable risk of public condemnation; in my experience, the preliminary proceedings carried out by the court fulfill this role very well in many cases.

Another Case in Düsseldorf – Criminal Defense Lawyer on Public shaming through criminal proceedings

Prior to that, I handled another case in Düsseldorf, also involving a charge of rape (§ 177 StGB), which went through two levels of appeal and also ended in an acquittal that has since become final. In this case, the defendant was acquitted in the first instance by the Local Court and subsequently also in the appellate instance by the Düsseldorf Regional Court—after another five days of trial proceedings.

German Criminal Defense Lawyer on the Press Coverage of Sexual Offenses

Even in the first instance, on the very first day of the trial, it took significant effort to prevent the press from taking a photo of the defendant in the dock and then posting a stigmatizing report online. In the courtroom at the Local Court, the press argued that the defendant’s face would be pixelated and that pixelation was sufficient to protect him—which, if you ask me, is a farce. Such images from the internet are circulated in certain circles with malicious comments online. Furthermore—according to the reporter with the camera—they had the court’s permission to take such photos at the start of the trial. Unfortunately, that was true. Regrettably, the court did not intervene properly, but after a heated argument, the photo was nevertheless prevented from being taken, and in the second instance, the same reporter made no further attempt at all.

Sitting in the defendant’s dock in a public court hearing on a charge of rape (Section 177 of the German Criminal Code) always carries the risk of public shaming and stigmatization, which must be prevented at all costs.

By the way: As a defense lawyer, there’s no need to aggressively attack such (incriminating) witnesses, as long as we have judges who can recognize what is unfolding before them during the trial. An assessment that may initially seem highly incriminating can be overturned if an criminal defense lawyer demonstrates professionally to the court what a court-appointed expert can and cannot do—and if one brings forward the witnesses who are ultimately responsible for suggesting the incriminating witness—that is the deliberate or unconscious influence on a person’s thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.

The two acquittal trials in Wuppertal and Düsseldorf

.... were not pleasant for anyone involved—including the defendants and the incriminating witnesses. And in the end, one must be grateful for judges who treat all parties fairly at every stage of the trial. Then, hopefully, the defendants can also recover from the ordeal. The trial in Düsseldorf concluded with the following statement in the judgment: “The joint plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, including those incurred through the civil action, as well as the necessary expenses incurred by the defendant.” In the civil action, the joint plaintiff—who had received very poor advice from those around her—had asserted a high six-figure monetary claim. Unfortunately, this is also a common side effect of many such trials in everyday life.