It could end well for the former AFD boss. The presiding judge of the 15th Grand Criminal Court of the District Court of Dresden begins the third day of the trial in the trial of Frauke Petry on Wednesday with a legal notice.
And the hint is a positive message for the defendant.
Petry is charged with perjury. It is said to have made false statements in November 2015 before the election examination committee of the Saxon Landtag under oath. At that time it was about loans of AfD candidates in the amount of 3000 and 1000 euros. This money should be used to finance the AFD election campaign for the 2014 state election.
"The defendant is pointed out that a conviction for negligent falsehood comes into question," says Judge Christian Linhardt now on Wednesday.
The court appears to have doubts that Petry purposely testified before the electoral review committee. Frauke Petry takes note of it at the dock without much emotion. Even her tension does not diminish noticeably.
The reference by the judge concerns the further political career of the 43-year-olds.
Petry resigned from the AFD after the general election in 2017 and founded the "Blue Party". Her mandates as a member of the Bundestag and the Saxon Landtag held her. In a final conviction for perjury Petry should not be elected for a period of five years and also perform no public office. She lost her parliamentary mandates.
If you do not properly push the memory
In a conviction for negligent misdemeanor you do not threaten it. Petry could keep her mandates and should be re-elected. For perjury is a crime, negligent misdemeanor only an offense. Perjury is punished with at least one year, negligent Falscheid with at most one year imprisonment.
What a negligent Falscheid is, explains the judge on this day of negotiations again and again. Whenever he teaches witnesses that they must tell the truth in court. He explains to them that false statements are punishable without oath and under oath, as well as a negligent wrongdoing. He says: "A negligent Falscheid occurs if you do not properly work your memory, say things in the blue." And from the court's point of view, maybe that's what Petry did.
more on the subject
In the electoral review committee, Petry said that the candidates themselves could decide whether they would get the money back from the party after they entered the state legislature or they would declare it as a donation.
In the loan agreement, however, there is no question of freedom of choice. There it says that the loan automatically turns into a donation after a successful election. Petry also remained under oath on her false statements, saying in retrospect that she was wrong, but had not deliberately lied. Several members of the electoral examination committee have already testified in court.
A conversation about attitude should not be there for the time being
This Wednesday testify Witnesses who were then members of the AfD and were candidates for the state election. A police officer says that he paid the money for the loan immediately and understood it as a donation in the event of his election. A judge at the district court of Dresden, who has since withdrawn from the AfD, says that he had not paid the money for the loan immediately after signing the contract, but later, which was not a problem. He also says that he has heard that others have not paid.
After the judge's warning, Petry's defense lawyer Carsten Brunzel starts a legal discussion about a possible termination of the proceedings. The judges refuse because the conditions for hiring are not fulfilled. A setting under section 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not possible in an accused crime.
The process will continue on Monday.