Rape or not? In Ferdinand von Schirach’s new film adaptation “She says. He says.” it’s about a serious topic. The judge and reviewer wish that the legal matter had only been as serious Lorenz Leitmeier.
Advertisement
Still so young, this 2024, and yet the television event of the year has already happened, on Monday evening on ZDF: The legal drama “She says. He says”, staged by top director Matti Geschonnek, played by terrific actors, written by – of course – Ferdinand von Schirach. The plot is manageably complex: The well-known TV presenter Katharina Schlüter (Ina Weisse) accuses the industrialist Christian Thiede (Godehard Giese), with whom she had a year-long affair, of raping her in his apartment after initially consensual sexual intercourse – maximum publicity Interest is guaranteed.
At the beginning, von Schirach announces from a voiceover that is grammatically and legally awkward, but all the more meaningful: “Our criminal code does not recognize the concept of evil. He [Es?] describes what misdemeanors and crimes are, a situation is resolved into action[-bestand?]”, illegality and guilt.” With their verdict, judges decided on the fate of the accused and the victim, but also who they themselves were, says the voice off. The tone for the total of 105 minutes is set: the social meaning is moving As usual, at maximum heights, the legal precision is more at the other end of the scale that is open towards the bottom.
The prosecution witness, the one who may have been raped, is stuck in a traffic jam? No problem, the court simply hears the expert (Proshat Madani) first – surely evidence is interchangeable? The forensic doctor also says that Ms. Schlüter appeared calm and attentive during the examination. The presiding judge at the regional court (Johanna Gastdorf) asks with interest whether this behavior is usual after a rape, and counters that there is no “usual” behavior, every woman reacts differently. Unfortunately, Ms. Judge doesn’t know the term “Dickpics” either, the expert explains patiently. Hmm. Not good when you’re obviously new to the court and are about to be given the chair of a large criminal chamber. But well, the explanation has to get to the viewer somehow.
Unfortunately, such sequences are reminiscent of books in which the information for the reader is presented in a realistic way in the protagonists’ dialogues (“Dad, after separating from mom, you are now raising us alone, i.e. me and my sister Tanja.”).
Now the lawyer is talking
In an unintentionally symbolic scene shortly after the interrogation begins, the defense attorney (Henriette Confurius) takes out her StPO commentary, briefly browses through it and then puts it away – there is probably nothing relevant to this trial in it. What the heck, the mountain doctor can manage without Pschyrembel. Three minutes later, the co-plaintiff’s lawyer (Matthias Brandt) arrives, introduces himself offensively and unsympathetically with the remark that he certainly hasn’t missed anything, and takes over the conduct of the hearing: he has the right to speak as he pleases, he translates the judge’s questions to witnesses as follows: how they were meant, i.e. suggestive in his sense. He starts verbal skirmishes with the defense attorney when it is advisable to do so, he slams his greasy croissant bag onto a witness’s file, and he makes spontaneous pleas. The defense attorney doesn’t want to be left behind, and she also presents her impulse monologues from time to time. The senior public prosecutor observes from a distance and never has any questions. He doesn’t get involved in the verbal battles of the other lawyers – why should he? Brandt, the presence monster, decides on his own authority which questions for the defense are admissible and whether the court behaves neutrally.
In terms of content – as is usual in court cases – the crucial question is particularly important when there are only two people involved: Can you believe the witness, is her statement comprehensible and consistent, and do the circumstances (What happened afterwards? What dress did she wear?) support her version? Or are there, as the defense attorney naturally points out, so many contradictions and doubts that the defendant should be acquitted?
In a fantastically ironic passage, the defense attorney talks about the principle of doubt and its importance for the constitutional state, but then applies it incorrectly: We don’t know for sure whether the witness was wearing the red dress or not, so what applies to the defendant is dubious be cheap. The principle of doubt should not be applied in isolation to individual pieces of evidence, but only after the evidence has been fully assessed?! Regardless, why burden the viewer with details? Isn’t the catchy catchphrase enough? Or is the defense attorney trying to trick the court?
In the end it doesn’t matter, the viewer learns a lot less about criminal law than about power and tactics in the courtroom: the young defense attorney used to be a trainee for the experienced lawyer on the other side, so the power relationship between men and women is not very subtle, even on a second level chamber play.
Let the defendant babble
The director spares us the final speech from the senior public prosecutor; we only learn that he is requesting a three-year prison sentence (murmurs in the audience). Of course, the real plea is made by the star lawyer for the co-prosecution; he has prepared a brilliant showcase speech for the audience. Just a moment ago the defense attorney was accusing the defense of unnecessary constitutional poetry because she declared “in dubio”, now he is now using solemn constitutional poetry to instruct the court how “in dubio” works. The court then explains to the television nation in extensive constitutional poetry that the defendant has the last word and can express his view undisturbed if he wants.
And as he would like: against the advice of his defense attorney (“That’s not a good idea!”), he takes the last word. Luckily, the defense attorney doesn’t request an interruption to discuss this cardinal decision with her client – otherwise the tension would be gone for the time being. So the defendant stands up and claims that his ex-affair wants revenge because he broke up. But can that be true? Is your version now even more doubtful?
You’re just about to think about it, but you’re distracted as the chairwoman shows brilliantly how seriously she takes her solemn words about the last word: When the public prosecutor comes to her with a piece of paper, she chats animatedly with him, the defendant speaks – undisturbed, just Unfortunately, it’s also unheard of. But it doesn’t matter, the trial is interrupted anyway. In a dramatic final twist, the defendant’s wife told the police that her husband had confessed to the rape. But she’s going through a divorce, does she want to finish him off with a false accusation? Oh dear, now we don’t know anything anymore, the viewer is left with uncertainty.
Unfortunately no vote this time
It’s a shame that you can’t vote like you did with previous Schirach plays. Between three years and an acquittal, two years of probation would be a nice compromise, right?
The defendant may have had the last word, but of course the master had the very last word: von Schirach explains that the guilt and innocence of a person are not decided by the media or social networks, but only by the court according to strict rules; the constitutional state does not want to spoil the truth any price. With this information, the television viewer can test their knowledge of criminal law at the crime scene on Sunday, when the criminal police are investigating again. Hopefully all commissioners will then adhere to the requirements of the rule of law, even those from Bavaria – Batic and Leitmayr.
The author Dr. Lorenz Leitmeier is a judge at the district court and is currently a full-time lecturer at the Bavarian Civil Service University (HföD), Department of Legal Administration.
Citation suggestion
ZDF legal drama “She says. He says.”: Oh, Schirach! . In: Legal Tribune Online, February 26, 2024, (accessed on: February 29, 2024)
Copy information about the citation suggestion