It was probably one of the most serious misjudgments of recent times: Josephine R. put her parents and her former partner behind bars for years. She had told the court that she had been repeatedly raped, tortured and humiliated by them. But it turned out: They were all lies.
After an appeal process, Josephine R.’s parents were acquitted a year and a half ago. It is more difficult with Josephine’s former partner Miriam A. because she has been legally convicted. The Braunschweig Higher Regional Court has now decided to reopen her case and interrupt her detention. The Göttingen regional court had previously declared a retrial inadmissible.
Miriam and Josephine met in a psychiatric hospital in the Goslar district, where both were treated. They entered into a love affair in which Josephine made her partner believe that she was being abused and tormented by her parents. To provide evidence of this, they filmed videos together, but it is now clear that they were fake.
Josephine R. managed to convince her psychiatrist, her lawyer and the public prosecutor of the torment she allegedly suffered. Both the consistency of her statements and the scratches on her body that she had Miriam A. teach her contributed to this. Miriam A’s lawyer advised her to confess, so she was sentenced to six years in prison as part of a plea deal.
Suddenly the parents are also blamed
Just a few days after the first verdict, Josephine R. also accused her mother and stepfather. Both were sentenced in June 2023: the mother received a prison sentence of 13.5 years with preventive detention, the stepfather received a sentence of nine years and six months. The police had expressed doubts about Josephine R’s account from the start.
Almost a year later, however, the Federal Court of Justice overturned the judgment against the parents. The assessment of the evidence did not stand up to scrutiny, it was said. The parents were released from custody. Another criminal chamber in Braunschweig reopened the trial and came to the conclusion in September 2024 that “the accused acts did not take place”.
The question now arose as to whether Josephine R.’s former partner had been rightly convicted. Miriam A. revoked her confession and the Göttingen public prosecutor requested that her case be reopened. The Göttingen regional court rejected this in September on the grounds that the application had not been submitted in the prescribed form. In addition, the public prosecutor’s office has not presented anything that could shake the verdict from 2022.
The Braunschweig Higher Regional Court now saw things differently: The newly presented facts and evidence could very well lead to an acquittal. This also includes revoking the confession.
High hurdles for readmission
Among other things, deleted video recordings were found on Miriam A’s cell phone, which suggest the suspicion of a staging. As the South German newspaper reported, you can see the two women bursting with laughter at an alleged rape. Miriam A. was provisionally released from prison after three and a half years.
That the Resuming proceedings after a final conviction is difficult is, among other things, because the legislature has limited it to a narrow catalog in Section 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, says Berlin lawyer Laura Farina Diederichs. She is a member of the board of directors Innocence Projects Deutschlandwhich advocates for retrials.
The possibility of providing new evidence is particularly relevant here. The fact that the available evidence was inadequately assessed in the completed proceedings is not sufficient for a reopening. The problem: “Finding new evidence is difficultsays Diederichs.
As a rule, the applicants themselves are responsible, but only have limited resources – especially if they are in prison. In the case of Miriam A., the public prosecutor’s office requested a reopening, which could also be due to the great public interest in the case.
The Innocence Project is therefore calling for an independent body to examine and investigate applications for reinstatement
Diederichs criticizes the lack of a culture of error in the German judiciary. “Most of the time there is no special responsibility,” she says. “In the case of the public prosecutor’s office, the cases often remain with the departments that are already responsible; there is no separate jurisdiction regulation at the judicial level either.” The Innocence Project is therefore calling for an independent body that examines and investigates applications for reinstatement – with state powers and capacities.
However, the lawyer also emphasizes that it has value and meaning that once judgments have become legally binding, they cannot simply be overturned. “How terrible it would be if the injured party was right and had to face trial again and again,” says Diederichs. (with dpa)