Press release: Defence Team of the Ulm 5 from 7th May 2026
Second Day of Trial on Monday, 11th May 2026
Defence Calls for a Fair Trial and Respect for the Presumption of Innocence – Demands Recusal of Current Judges Due to Prejudice
Events on the First Day of the Trial
The defence team for the Ulm 5 are appalled by the conduct of the trial by Presiding Judge Kathrin Lauchstädt on the first day of the trial and the confirmation of her rulings by her fellow judges.
In violation of the presumption of innocence, our clients were presented to the public and the press in a manner that inevitably gives an impartial observer the impression that their guilt has already been established. As the hearing started, they were led into the courtroom in handcuffs, held like this for several minutes for the press to take photos, and then kept in a glass enclosure for the entire trial – shielded from the public by a security glass partition and additionally guarded by court officers. All of this despite the fact that the trial is taking place in the high-security courtroom within the Stammheim Prison. There is absolutely no justification for this manner of portraying our clients.
Confidential communication between the defendants and their defence lawyers was not guaranteed during the proceedings. Even non-confidential communication with the defendants was repeatedly disrupted by technical problems; for some defence lawyers, it was impossible at any point throughout the day to communicate with their client. Despite this, the court refused to accept any statements or motions from the defence -without even knowing their content. The fact that Presiding Judge Karin Lauchstädt believes she can set aside the defence’s motions without even knowing their content speaks to her relationship with the defence and the defendants: she perceives it as an attack on her authority when the defence articulates the defendants’ interests.
Prejudgment by the Court
This portrayal of our clients gives the public the impression that they are dangerous individuals and that the public and the court must be protected from them. In fact, none of the accused has a criminal record; the offence involved no violence against people or even resistance against individuals.
The Stuttgart Regional Court has made prejudicial statements to the press on multiple occasions, for example to Taz (published on 2nd May 2026). The Stuttgart Regional Court informed Taz that the choice of Stammheim as the venue for the trial was not unusual, because other cases had been heard there,
“for example, against the Islamist murderer of police officer Rouven Laur, against alleged supporters of ‘Gruppe Reuß’ [suspected of terrorism, ed.] or several cases related to the conflict between two rival gangs in the Stuttgart region.”
The Stuttgart Regional Court compares the proceedings against our clients to murder and terrorism cases. These statements reinforce the impression created in the public eye that the defendants are particularly dangerous individuals who therefore require special security measures.
Violation of our Clients’ Fundamental Rights
Before, during, and after the first day of the trial, the bench has denied our clients the right to be heard and deprived them of their status as parties to the proceedings. For this reason, the defence has filed challenges for bias against the entire bench. The very choice of seating arrangement underscores the fact that the bench regards the defendants as objects. In the case of Federici v. France, the European Court of Human Rights expressly held that the presentation of a defendant in a glass cell is, in principle, capable of violating the right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence, and that this depends on a case-by-case assessment. In the present case, the Stuttgart Regional Court has not even made a superficial attempt at such a consideration.
The reprimand of the defence team through threats of dismissal and the imposition of costs after just the first day of the trial reinforces the impression that the court is not committed to conducting proceedings in accordance with the rule of law, but rather to implementing its own ideas at the expense of our clients’ rights. Although the Regional Court has since refrained from dismissing the defence lawyers, it continues to uphold this threat in an attempt to discipline the defence.
Outlook
On the second day of the trial, our clients face the challenge of asserting their fundamental right to a fair trial without risking the loss of their defence lawyers, with whom they have built a strong relationship of trust after eight months in pre-trial detention. We call on the Stuttgart Regional Court to rectify the conditions under which the first day of the trial took place – conditions that contravene the rule of law – and to ensure that confidential communication between the defence and the defendants is permitted on the second day of the trial, whilst refraining from any prejudicial measures.
Interference with Freedom of the Press
Extraordinary scenes unfolded outside the courtroom as well, between the court bailiffs and the press spokesman, Dr Timur Lutfullin, and journalists. The defence had prepared a press pack for interested journalists and made it available initially inside and subsequently outside the courthouse. However, these press kits were confiscated from the journalists inside the courthouse by the bailiffs under the supervision of the press officer; at least one journalist was even forced to open their locker to hand over the press kit from their private belongings. The Stuttgart Regional Court does not shy away from undermining the independent work of the press by preventing journalists from freely choosing their sources whilst also severely hindering the defence of the accused, who also have the right to present their views to the press in an appropriate manner.
The undersigned are available for further inquiries.
Dr. Maja Beisenherz, München, info@beisenherz.eu, 0177 / 70 95 812, Michael Brenner, Nürnberg, michael.brenner@anw-nbg.de, 0911 / 37 66 42 77, Mathes Breuer, München, breuer@kanzlei-abe.de, 0175 / 52 46 963, Anna Magdalena Busl, Bonn, busl@anwaltsbuero-bonn.de, 0176 / 23 23 32 35, Benjamin Düsberg, Berlin, mail@rechtsanwalt-duesberg.de, 0157 / 30 30 8383, Carolin Kaufmann, Berlin, kaufmann@akm-berlin.de, 0172 / 47 21 420, Rosa Mayer-Eschenbach, München, eschenbach@kanzlei-abe.de, 0176 / 65 35 94 43, Christina Mucha, Memmingen, info@kanzlei-mucha.de, 08331 / 69 08 136, Nina Onèr, Berlin, kanzlei@ninaoner.de, 01520 97 33 278, Matthias Schuster, Berlin, mail@anwalt-schuster.de, 0176 / 24 75 8230, Martina Sulzberger, Augsburg, kanzlei@anwaeltin-sulzberger.de, 0821 / 50 87 3850