Attorneys Beka Nemsitsveridze and Avtandil Giorgadze represented D.K., who was charged with attempted murder allegedly committed by a group under aggravating circumstances.
At the initial stage of the case, the evidence presented by the prosecution appeared, at first glance, to form a strong case against our client. Investigators had interviewed two witnesses who implicated D.K. in the alleged offence, while two other individuals identified him as the driver of the vehicle from which, according to the prosecution’s version of events, shots had been fired in the direction of the victim.
Despite the evidence presented against the defendant, the defence did not limit its work to reviewing the materials collected by the prosecution and conducted its own independent investigation.
Findings of the Defence
As a result of the defence investigation, it was established that the witnesses who, according to the interview records prepared by investigators, had provided incriminating information against D.K. had not actually seen the driver of the vehicle under circumstances that would have allowed them to make a reliable identification.
During their examination and cross-examination before the court, further significant circumstances emerged, including substantial procedural violations in the manner in which the witnesses had been interviewed during the investigation. These findings raised serious questions both as to the reliability of the information obtained and the process by which the prosecution evidence had been gathered.
A video-technical expert examination commissioned by the defence was also of particular importance to the case. According to the expert findings, contrary to the prosecution’s version of events, the shots had not been fired from D.K.’s vehicle.
The defence also independently interviewed a number of individuals with knowledge relevant to the case. The information they provided further contradicted the prosecution’s version of events and became an important part of the defence position.
Throughout the trial, detailed examination of witnesses and systematic analysis of the case materials revealed additional procedural violations and factual inconsistencies. Taken together, these findings substantially altered the evidentiary picture that had existed at the outset of the proceedings.
Result
Following several months of court proceedings, the court accepted the defence arguments and fully acquitted D.K. of the charges against him.
The acquittal was subsequently appealed but was upheld by the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
The case therefore concluded with D.K.’s full acquittal at all three levels of the Georgian court system.
This case demonstrates the importance of the defence independently obtaining evidence and critically examining the evidence presented by the prosecution. A case that initially appears strong may ultimately require a fundamentally different assessment when each item of evidence, witness statement, and investigative action is subjected to detailed professional scrutiny, both individually and as a whole.
