Lagdommer Kristel Heyerdahl were both of legal age, educational and balanced in the last rettsbelæring for a Norwegian jury.
There was a high temperature in the sal 250 Wednesday. The benches were filled by the audience, pressebenkene full and the air bad. The court administrator held, however, a cool head and reasoning cool. Heyerdahl summed up the most important from 77 rettsdager an impressive way.
Both sides, both the Jensen’s defenders and Spesialenheten, be able to note important concessions in the referee’s review.
bevisenes weakness – but also the weak point in Jensen’s explanation Comment
the part of The rettsbelæringen which is all about the law are binding on the jury, the very principles of bevisbedømmingen. Here the character is New, the framework for the jury’s discussion, with the clear instruction that a damning verdict depends on that there are no reasonable and sensible doubt that Jensen is guilty.
Heyerdahl review of what she thinks is the most important evidence in the case is not binding upon the jury, but worked very clarifying in one of the most complex criminal cases ever. She asked the jury to consider a number of some evidence in particular, but endorsed the evidence that pointed in both directions – both to Jensen’s benefit and to the prosecution.
very important is the judge’s instructions about what to judge Jensen, guilty of complicity to the importation of drugs, since this is the question that can give him 21 years in prison. Gross corruption has a maximum sentence of ten years.
Jensen’s defender John Christian the midst of the Fire said, are particularly pleased with the fact that he believes Heyerdahl set a stricter beviskrav on the point about the participation than the district court’s judgment did.
retired: the Jury in the Jensen case has now retired, after atdommer Kristel Heyerdahl has given its rettsbelæring. So considering Eric Jensen’s lawyer the.. Video: Nicolai Delebekk / Dagbladet / View more
the district Court stated that the Jensen as a police officer was obliged to intervene if he knew that Cappelen was storimportør of marijuana, and that a failure to do so was to be guilty of “passive complicity”.
Heyerdahl said, however, that she believes in this case the absence of passive medvirkningsansvar, and that question the jury shall take the position of “if Jensen has contributed with active actions”.
Why should Jensen have known about at least a concrete narkotikainnførsel in advance and made a deliberate choice to help ensure that it can happen – for example, by sending a text message about the “ask here” or “control”. Jensen doesn’t need to have had full control over what happened at the border. He could have made himself guilty of complicity by lying to Cappelen that he had it.
Spesialenhetens Guro Glærum Kleppe and Jan Egil Presthus, could his side be happy with that New, them, stressed that it is not necessary that the jury agree on beviskravet for a single importation. If at least seven jurors find it proven that Jensen has contributed to at least one importation, they could in principle be convinced about seven different introductions.
They were probably also pleased that Heyerdahl rejected Eldens argument about whether procedural as an independent frifinnelsesgrunnlag.
Now life can be all over the Comment
In the review of the evidence showed Heyerdahl consistently to both Spesialenhetens timelines and forsvarernes. She asked the jury look at the evidence in 2013, just before the arrest of Cappelen. Here are any suspicious text messages from Jensen, which may indicate that he knows about hasjvirksomheten. But there is also evidence that storsmugleren gave the policeman information in an ongoing politisak in a different district, and there are entries in the police etterretningssystem about the people that Jensen has said that Cappelen gave him information about.
DAYS: Jury may take multiple days, think Dagbladet commentator Martine Aurdal. Now taking the “final” in the trial of Eirik Jensen. Video: Nicolai Delebekk. Reporter: Martine Aurdal Show more
Heyerdahl listed a number of politiaksjoner in certain years as Cappelen shall have contributed to, the questions that have been treated behind closed doors in court. He wrinkled his forehead and squinted morskt against the judge. But what she said was the crucial information for realization of a historical case.
Behind these doors is determined Jensens fate: -“Poor, poor people