For the second Time had to have to the Federal court deal with the case. But after the lunch today published verdict the end of hope is reached: The Lausanne judges confirm the judgment of the Zurich high court. This one had condemned the woman because of intentional homicide, your a self-defense situation to the benefit of held. Because you exceeded the limits of permissible self-defense but was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six years.
The case had aroused in November 2012, a great deal of attention. The victim was a then 54-year-old, 190-centimeter-sized and 130-pound Brazilian, who rode under the name of "Godzilla" combat sport at the highest level the best.
The victim on a recording from his time as a combat athlete. Image: PD
He and the 23-year-younger Swiss had led for years an On-again off-again relationship – a relationship in which quarrels, beatings and threats to the everyday life of the couple belonged to. On that 17. November, it came in the man's apartment to a first verbal, then physical confrontation.
pressed five times from
The woman wanted to go, was by him but is prevented from doing so. As he threatened her to make you a cripple or to kill, she grabbed the gun, which she had fatal taken way from home, by invited you and sent you to your friend. As this was pumped full of cocaine and alcohol, but to impress and, despite the warning on, you stalked, shot them from a short distance five times. The last two shots there, although the man is hurt already heavy and defenseless back was on the floor.
The district court of Zurich sentenced the woman's in March 2015, due to intentional homicide, committed in self-defence excess, to imprisonment for a term of five years. The Prosecutor had demanded 13 years. In April 2016, it turned out quite differently. The Supreme court acquitted the woman of guilt and punishment.
The psychiatric experts spoke of a "massive threat", the Supreme court from the "survival mode".
The psychiatric experts had spoken of a "massive threat", the top court said the woman had been mentally in a "survival mode". Although the court of appeal was an intentional killing. Unlike the district court held that the self-defence excess, but for the excusable. According to the law, a Person is not punished if they exceed the limits of allowed self-defense, the Excess, in excusable excitement or panic attack.
Federal court overturned the acquittal on
in Contrast, the Prosecutor's office appealed to the Federal court. And got right. It picked up in October 2017 for the acquittal. Key point: The Supreme court didn't even checked whether or not a self-defense had been the situation pre. This is the Supreme court took in June of last year. Again, it is not followed, the Prosecutor requested a prison sentence of eleven years. It is the defense attorney asked for a confirmation of the acquittal is not followed but also.
The Accused, the Supreme court, had acted in self-defense, but the boundaries of permissible self-defence have been exceeded. You don't have planned the deed, but you should have expected because of her history, on the Day that it comes to that. In addition, it would have been unreasonable, first give a warning shot.
Apart from the 93 days of detention was the woman in the last seven years in freedom.
Because the Supreme court an "excitement or dismay," not to the benefit of holding her but it had to be a punishment set: six years. Now, the Convicted appealed to the Federal court. But to no avail. The highest court is the latest ruling in all Parts agree. On a rejection, it is not declined, however, to drag the procedure into the length. Even in the case of a rejection of the reassessment by the court of appeal for a lighter penalty would be out of the question.
For the Accused of the rejection of their appeal by the Federal court means a massive turning point in your life. Because, apart from 93 days in detention, the woman was in the last seven years in freedom. You should only have to serve two thirds of their sentence, it can be expected at the latest in four years with their release. _____________ judgment 6B_971/2018
Created: 22.11.2019, at 14:05