Life imprisonment in the Kusel case: “An execution”

The main suspect in the murder of two police officers in Kusel was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court did not believe in the alleged self-defence. Rather, it stated that the guilt was “particularly serious”.

Shortly after 1 p.m., the presiding judge, Raphael Mall, is actually through with the verdict in the Kaiserslautern courtroom. But only almost. Finally, he turns to the relatives of the dead victims. “For two and a half hours it was essentially about the accused S. But your families were also given life sentences.” In a different way. He hopes that this criminal trial has at least helped the families begin their personal work-up.

what happened in the night

After months of taking evidence, the court reconstructed to the second what it believed happened on January 31, 2022 between four and five in the morning on a country road near Kusel in Rhineland-Palatinate. The two accused Andreas S. and Florian V. are together on illegal hunting that night – as is often the case. S. is a passionate hunter, but no longer has a hunting permit. V. is his assistant, who collects the hunted game for money and later helps with the cutting up.

When a patrol with a male and female police officer stops to check them and the two discover dead game in the trunk, S. shoots the officers several times and kills them. “Come quickly, she shoots, she shoots,” the presiding judge quotes the original radio message from the police officer in the Palatinate dialect, when he had just reported the suspicion of poaching and wanted to pass on the personal details. The radio message had been played in the courtroom during the trial.

Court does not believe in self-defense

On the first day of the trial, the accused S. testified through his defense counsel that he had had to defend himself against police shots and only reacted to a muzzle flash. He referred to self-defense and accused V. of having shot as well. But the court does not believe this version after the hearing of evidence. The location of the tracks also speaks against it.

Manslaughter always becomes murder if certain “murder characteristics” regulated by law are present. In the case of S., this is the murder characteristic of the “intention to cover up” for the court. By killing the police officers, S. wanted to ensure that poaching and his illegal possession of weapons remain undetected. Because of the radio message, he was aware in the specific situation that the police suspected him of poaching. But his identity was not yet known. Only the two police officers could have recognized him.

With the illegal hunt being exposed, his purpose in life would have been lost, S. would have been robbed of his passion, according to the court. Intention to cover up yes – other murder characteristics such as greed, malice or base motives could not be determined with certainty in the act.

“Life imprisonment” does not mean 15 years

If the court assumes murder, as here, it usually has no leeway with the punishment. Murder carries a life sentence. Contrary to what many people think, life imprisonment never automatically means (only) 15 years. It is correct: In the case of life imprisonment, it must be checked later whether the convicted person can be released on probation after 15 years. The prerequisite is that he is no longer a danger to the general public. So there is a lifetime chance of getting out after 15 years.

But not in the case of Kusel’s murder. Because the court found the “particular seriousness of the guilt” here. This has concrete consequences. This means that there is no chance of being released after 15 years. If the verdict becomes final, S. will definitely have to stay in prison for more than 15 years. Exactly how long cannot be said with certainty today. Even if the presiding judge spoke of at least 20 or 25 years, a decision has not yet been made on this. In any case, dismissal would only be possible if S. no longer posed any danger. All of this is music of the future.

Particular severity of guilt for “execution”

The presiding judge explains in detail why there is a “particularly serious guilt” in this case. This is not an easy matter for a court. Because what distinguishes a “normal” murder from one with “particularly serious guilt”?

Central argument: S. killed the police officers who were still alive after the first shots were fired at close range with shots in the head. The police officer’s face was shredded. S. proceeded as with his hunting expeditions. After the hunt, he frequently sent text messages saying, “Headshot, as always.” This motto also applied to him when he killed the two police officers. In the case of a human being, that is called “an execution,” according to the presiding judge.

Second accused: complicity in poaching, but no punishment

The second accused V. was also suspected of murder immediately after the crime. The public prosecutor’s office dropped this allegation before the trial began. The court has now convicted him of “assisting poaching in a particularly serious case”, but refrained from a penalty. This is not an acquittal. The judgment against V. means: He was found guilty, but there is no sanction.

The court applied the so-called “leniency program” in the Criminal Code to V. In a case like this, the law allows for a “dispensation of punishment” if someone has contributed to the investigation of a serious crime. From the point of view of the court, V. did this through his statements. V. waived appeals through his defense attorney in the courtroom today.

The judgment against S. is not yet final, he can appeal against it. Then the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe would review the written judgment for legal errors.