Known lawyer sentenced for planting evidence

Kjendisadvokaten Morten Andreassen is convicted in Lower Telemark district court to 30 days of conditional jail for having helped to plant evidence in a criminal case, with the intention to thwart the police investigation, writes VG.

- He got the verdict declared yesterday, and it was immediately appealed, says defender Erling Lyngtveit to the Newspaper.

- What is the background for the appeal?

He believes that he is not guilty of what he is convicted for. He is judged to have asked a man to plant evidence. He has explained that his purpose and goal was the opposite: To prevent that it was tampered with evidence. He is disappointed with the judgment, " says Lyngtveit.

There is no automaticity in that the anchor in cases with penalties in the field at this level to be taken up for treatment of the court of appeal.

Andreassen is an employee of the law firm the Fire.

But he has been on sick leave for a year for reasons other than this case, says Lyngtveit.

- Very weak judgment

Anders Brosveet, managing director at the law firm Fire, say, on a general basis that the charges in a case like this is not in accordance with the to should practice as a lawyer.

- If a lawyer has done something near it that appears in this judgment, then it is completely unacceptable and in violation of the very basic prerequisites for forsvarervirksomhet, he says to Dagbladet.

Still, he has little faith that the Album has done what he was sentenced for on Friday.

As we know, this subject matter from the documents and from the judgment, we mean that the judgment is very weak and inconsistent. They have, as we interpret it, missed completely on the facts, " says Brosveet, which obviously is upset over the verdict.

DIRECTOR: Anders Morten Brosveet, managing director at the law firm Fire, think the judgment will be reversed in the court of appeal. Photo: Vidar Ruud / NTB scanpix Show more Defense in the ranssak

the Background of the matter is that Andreassen was the defense for a man who is in custody in Utah charged with robbery. The offended person in the case, believed himself robbed of 95 000, while the defendant acknowledged the robbery of the 37 000. Of the judgment, it is stated that Andreassen was called by the man's brother. The call was picked up by the police kommunikasjonskontroll of her brother, and the court think the lawyer in two conversations with her brother, told that the police were going to search the residence to their mother to look for the stolen money that the defendant should have hidden there and that he probably would be released if the money was found in her.

The only logical interpretation of the subject matter based on what you actually know, is that Andreassen wanted to ensure that the police actually found the money. Based on the judgment in the underlying case, it is also clear that the money is not planted, mean Brosveet.

He believes the district court has misinterpreted the phone call, and not managed to "put it in their important context".

According to the verdict mediated the Album is that the client of his had said that the money was to be sited "in a drawer down" and that "one had to hope that there was a kr. 37 000 when the police got there".

the Prosecution believes he instructed his brother to make sure it was 37 000 in the tray when the police arrived, and that Andreassen with it contributed to the "planting and/or fabrication of evidence to thwart the police investigation".

Large parts of the conversations between the lawyer and siktedes brother are reproduced in the judgment. The first call initiates the following:

"the Lawyer: What I heard just was that he had acknowledged to taken 37.

Brother: Yes.

the Lawyer: And he shall together with the now and show where they are, and if they are there then release him out into the night.

his Brother: Okay, he is going out and show they where they are?

the Lawyer: Yes.

the Brother: 37 000.

Lawyer: mm.

his Brother: Okay.

the Lawyer: And if not, I don't know what is his plan, if they are not there, so he is sitting."

Should stay

Later the same evening they talked together again. His brother gave then expressed that he did not fully understood what the lawyer had meant. The conversation was going on then, so according to the judgment

"the Lawyer: Yes , but I can't - I must assume that what he says to me is true, for it, I can't seem to, I can't - it is very important to me that I may not be on something, so instruct you to something, so it, this conversation, I will assume that he has the chance to talk properly, and (that) I now tell to you only so that you do not should be worried about.

Brother: No, but I need to know, what is it he, he has said, however, it is not there - since he will be home to my mom not true.

the Lawyer: Yes.

Brother: It is a bit important for me to know that he says that he is going home to mom and he says, bring money there, what should he bring money there.

the Lawyer: Yes.

Brother: Yes, okay, how much money then?

Lawyer: 37 - as he has acknowledged.

the Brother : 37.

the Lawyer: Yes.

his Brother : So it should be there then.

the Lawyer: he talked about that they lay in a drawer down, and it is this case depending on, then we'll bet that it's true.

his Brother : Okay, it should be 37000 down in a tray.

the Lawyer: Yes.

Brother : Wow, then no, it is freaking hard for me to understand it now, he is an idiot you could have said to him from me - I don't understand a shit now not true.

Lawyer: No.

his Brother : He makes it freaking difficult.

the Lawyer: Yes, but I can't do anything more than what I have done, I think that I am at the limit of what I should do.

Brother : Yes, yes, I know, but - yes it is fine, then I get only understand it as I have understood.

the Lawyer: So - my starting point must be that it is like that there - that things are such as he has explained.

his Brother : Yea, so it should be 37 thousand money there and then.

the Lawyer: Yes, we must hope for it.

his Brother : He it will he and not true.

the Lawyer: Yes."

- Would prevent bevistukling

According to the judgment explained the Album in the court that the client is his, the ranssiktede man, had expressed concern that his brother might have touched the money and that the mother and småsøsknene should be at the address when the police arrived, and that he, therefore, desired that her brother should speak with the mother.

the Explanation of his rendered as follows in the judgment:

the Defendant wanted only to signal towards his brother that it was the client's wish that the money should be found. The intention was rather to prevent that the evidence was tampered with.

he also said that He perceived that it acknowledged the amount was not problematic by the police, and that the finding of the money was only as a convenient to-do list to convert.

Andreassen was not believed by the court, which also stressed that he gave his brother the "completely concrete information as to what was the acknowledged amount, where it should lie and that the police were going out and look for money".

To the right, see it was this information clearly likely to influence the recipient to take some action up against the pengebeviset, called it in the judgment.

the Court has also stressed that Andreassen said to his brother that he would not instruct him, and that he therefore also knew that the information was likely to influence his brother to do something against pengebeviset.

despite this, he continued to repeat the information for her brother, called in the judgment.

"Clumsy"

Brosveet think it's as good as obvious that the judgment will be reversed after a ankebehandling.

- As an experienced strafferettspraktiker, so I have very difficult to see any other outcome than that this judgment will be reversed in the appellate court. But let there be no doubt that it would have been completely unacceptable if we had done anything like he is accused of - with the purpose that is attributed.

He also believes it is obvious that the Andreassen has formulated itself awkwardly in the telephone call, which constitute a central basis for the judgment.

It made it possible for the district court to misinterpret him. But when one sees it in the context of surrounding fact, after my judgment be no doubt that it must be interpreted as meaning that he wanted to assure himself that his brother did not remove the dividend, so that it still lay there when the police came, he says to Dagbladet.

Andreassen has a background as a manager in the music industry, among other things, the former for Carp Diem. He has also been involved in team around the boksestjernen Cecilia to This, and had primary responsibility for the negotiations with a German promotorselskap before one of This' storkamper.