The minor G.G. was charged under Article 120 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (intentional minor bodily injury) and Article 177(3) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (theft committed repeatedly by a group of persons acting in prior agreement).
According to the prosecution, the minor allegedly used a knife to inflict injury on a foreign national and subsequently, together with unidentified individuals, unlawfully and covertly stole expensive alcoholic beverages from a chain supermarket.
The minor was represented in court by criminal defense attorneys Beka Nemsitsveridze and Vasil Mamulashvili.
Serious Procedural Violations During the Investigation
From the very first day, the investigation was conducted with gross violations of criminal procedural law, which is particularly unacceptable in cases involving minors.
The defense identified:
- restriction of the minor’s right to defense;
- indications of fabricated evidence;
- coercion during questioning;
- failure to observe special procedural safeguards applicable to minors.
Despite the lack of sufficient evidence, the Old Tbilisi District Prosecutor’s Office nevertheless filed charges and referred the case to the Tbilisi City Court.
Prosecution’s Evidence
The prosecution alleged that:
- the assault charge was supported by testimony of the alleged victim and his acquaintance;
- identification protocols;
- other documentary evidence;
- surveillance video footage;
- testimony of a supermarket employee.
Defense Strategy and Evaluation of Evidence
During trial proceedings, the defense successfully demonstrated that:
- the testimonies of the alleged victim and his acquaintance were contradictory;
- imprecise;
- inconsistent on material facts, rendering them inadmissible as evidence;
- habitoscopic examination;
- identification of individuals;
- corroboration of the prosecution’s allegations by other evidence.
Court Decision
In the course of examining the evidence, the court identified numerous substantial procedural violations, which collectively led to the conclusion that:
the prosecution failed to prove the minor’s guilt to the standard required by law.
As a result:
- G.G. was acquitted of the charge under Article 120;
- G.G. was acquitted of the charge under Article 177(3);
- the court issued a full acquittal verdict.
Legal Significance of the Case
This case demonstrates that:
- criminal proceedings involving minors require heightened procedural protection;
- unlawfully obtained evidence cannot form the basis of a conviction;
- contradictory testimony and unlawful identification invalidate the prosecution’s case;
- professional legal defense is essential to ensuring a fair trial for minors.
Juvenile Criminal Defense Consultation in Georgia
If a minor is facing criminal prosecution for assault, theft, or other criminal offenses, timely and qualified legal assistance is crucial.
Contact us for a confidential consultation — protecting the rights of minors requires experience, precision, and strategic legal advocacy.
