Verdict Declared Without Due Process!
Archive of Truth in Exile: What does a verdict without due process really mean?
The court anticipated that announcing the verdict publicly would raise suspicion, because the verdict was reached without completing essential judicial procedures, including cross-examination of witnesses.
To avoid this, the verdict was announced in a closed hearing. However, the official report falsely states that the hearing was public. This discrepancy constitutes evidence of a violation of the principle of open justice and undermines the fairness of the trial process.
This is not the only mistake in the court hearing, as these posts explain in more details about the essentials of due process. Declaring a verdict itself requires due process, which the court ignored.
When a policeman is involved in such a case, the court appears to give more weight to his testimony than to the accused, who is more vulnerable. An independent and trustworthy court must treat any testimony from authority representatives with caution, especially when the accused presents strong testimony.
When contradictions arise between the two, the court should verify the truth through cross-examination. Even when physical evidence is presented, such as a knife or other alleged weapon, the court must establish whether it actually caused any injuries.
It must also consider the context... whether the tool was used inside or outside a home, and how the act occurred. These are essential safeguards of due process, and ignoring them undermines the fairness of the verdict.
The court’s reliance on a photograph of the knife, rather than presenting the actual knife, undermines the evidentiary process. A fair trial requires that material evidence be produced, authenticated, and subject to examination.
A photograph cannot establish chain of custody or confirm that the item shown is the actual weapon. Without the presence of the real knife, the court risks basing its verdict on evidence that is incomplete and potentially unreliable.
Defense argument: The defence lawyer must have argued that the court failed to establish whether the knife existed, whether it was the actual weapon, and whether it caused injuries. He did not challenge the knife evidence, which was presented only as a photograph rather than the actual material object.
This silence allowed the court to treat the evidence as uncontested, despite the fact that due process requires authentication of material evidence. A fair trial cannot rely on photographs alone, especially when the physical item is available but withheld. The absence of objection does not absolve the court of its duty to ensure reliability, and the failure to raise this issue undermines the fairness of the verdict.
A verdict should not mark the end of a court session if the process of cross-examination has not been completed. A fair trial requires a thorough, evidentiary process that includes the use of witnesses where available, followed by proper cross-examination.
It also requires a full jury selection, not merely two lay assessors (in previous posts mentioned as jurors). Jury selection itself must follow established procedures, allowing both parties in the case to accept or challenge jurors to ensure impartiality. Ignoring these safeguards undermines the fairness and legitimacy of the verdict.
The verdict should not be the end of the session of any court and the court cannot move from it in another session to decide on how that verdict should without completing the process of cross examination.
Fair trail requires a long semi-investigative process and a use of witness if any and then process of cross examination with full of jurors selection already done, not only two jurors. Choosing jurors has also a process that runs according to the accept or refusal of any two parties in conflict in the case in front of the court.
In jurisdictions that guarantee jury trials, limiting participation to only two jurors would violate fair trial standards. Even in systems that rely on lay assessors, the absence of party approval in their selection raises serious concerns about impartiality and transparency. A fair trial requires both adequate representation and safeguards that allow parties to challenge potential bias.
Two lay assessors are not enough to ensure fair justice.
⚖️ Additional Legal Grounding
In many European systems (Germany, France, Italy), two lay assessors sit alongside professional judges in certain criminal cases. This is legally permitted, but it’s often criticized because: Numerical imbalance: Two lay assessors cannot outweigh or even balance the authority of professional judges.
Selection process: Lay assessors are usually appointed administratively, not chosen with party approval, so impartiality is harder to guarantee. Fair trial principle: The right to a fair trial requires impartial adjudication. If lay assessors are too few or selected without party input, the safeguard against judicial bias is weakened.
Navigating Verdict Declared Without Due Process!
The Court of Manipulation! Resistance in the Face of Institutional Theater! What is staged as justice becomes theater, and resistance must name the script.
Funded Silence: The Letter That Should Never Have Come! When Legal Process Is Violated to Protect a Lying Policeman! Letters become weapons, shielding authority while violating the very process they claim to uphold. I am wondering what laws some lawyers in Denmark have studied in the universities!
Funded Silence: Shadow Beneath State! Legal Resistance Against Manufactured Guilt! The shadow beneath the state is not absence, it is the machinery of guilt manufactured against witnesses.
Courtroom Statement of Resistance and Truth! Court Predetermined “Guilt” to Protect a Policeman Who Violated his Own Authority! Truth spoken in court becomes resistance, even when guilt is predetermined to protect authority.
Archive in Exile - When Privacy Becomes a Currency! Privacy is no longer protection, it is traded, commodified, and weaponized against the vulnerable. Testimony from Denmark’s Housing Shadows!
Six Scenarios of Retaliation and Refusal! Retaliation repeats, but refusal insists on naming what others erase. Archive in Exile: Wy Human Rights Organizations are Sleeping in Denmark?
Closing Doors, Opening Conspiracies! Archive of Truth in Exile: How Denmark’s Police and Courts Weaponize Silence Against Witnesses?
Premeditated Court, Unjustifiable Guilt! Archive of Truth in Exile: When a Policeman’s Reputation Outweighs Truth in Danish Courts!
The Myth of Good Policeman! Archive of Truth in Exile: When a Policeman Lies Without Shame & His Oath, If Found, Is Violated!
Entrapment by Silence, Dignity Restored! Archive of Truth in Exile: Police tactics of concealment and systemic cover‑up!
Truth Carries Its Own Weight! Archive of Truth in Exile: Parts of Lifetime Stories in Motion: Entrapment by Silence, Dignity Restored! → Rotation of officers → Criminal Checks → Psycho Tests All False!
No Crime, Yet Declared Guilty! Archive of Truth in Exile: How a Danish Court ignored corpus delicti, actus reus, and mens rea in favor of authority?
Civil Hearing Framed As Criminal! Archive of Truth in Exile: Court Upholds Police Authority, Ignores the Victim!
Policeman’s Word Becomes Bible in Denmark! Archive of Truth in Exile: When a Court Align Itself with a Lying Policeman, Justice Wears a Light Parada that Exposes Its Private Organs!
Lies in Danish Court Hearing! Archive of Truth in Exile: How a Court in Denmark Declared “Guilt” Without Cross-Examination of Lies?
Selecting Juries in Danish Courts! Case study - Archive of Truth In Exile: How the process of selecting juries in Danish courts is fragile and is reflecting injustice?
Courts Ignore Fundamentals of Justice! Archive of Truth In Exile: How a court in Denmark ignores the fundamentals of justice in favor of police authority?
Reframing Testimony: Injustice in Denmark! Archive of Truth in Exile: No Public, No Oath, No Cross-Examination, No Justice!
Verdict Declared Without Due Process! Archive of Truth in Exile: What does a verdict without due process really mean?
The Ethics of Proximity: Faith in Fracture! The Threshold of Belief That Exposes that There’s No Belief, But Personal Interests! Proximity reveals fracture, where faith is traded for interests, and belief is exposed as convenience.
Memoir: Deng Akok’s Suicide and Denmark’s Ongoing Human Rights Violations! A testimony that begins with loss, and exposes how silence is funded through denial.
International Pain Walks with Us! Archive of Truth In Exile: From Geneva to Copenhagen, Khartoum, Port-au-Prince & Beyond!
A Call to Extend UNHCR Mandate of Care! Archive of Truth In Exile: Beyond Arrival to Resettlement: Humanitarian Job Unfinished!
