Novi Sad murder trial: expert confirms six stab wounds

The trial of the defendant S.T. resumed on Monday before the Higher Court in Novi Sad. He is charged with killing his common-law partner B.P. in the Grbavica district of the city. Guilt has not been established by a final verdict.

The key part of the hearing was the testimony of a forensic medical expert. The expert presented findings on the injuries the victim sustained. According to those findings, there were six stab wounds. All of them, the expert stated, were inflicted while the victim was alive.

The expert also explained the sequence of the injuries. He said the wounds were inflicted one after another and that the victim felt pain. The findings were presented to the panel and to the parties. The defense had the opportunity to ask questions.

Why is the trial starting over?

The trial began from the start because of a change in the panel of judges. This is a routine procedural step. When the composition of the panel changes, the main hearing is repeated, because only judges who have directly examined all the evidence can deliver a verdict.

Repeating the trial does not mean the earlier findings are void. The expert examinations and testimonies are presented again, before the new panel. This preserves the principle of immediacy, one of the basic rules of criminal procedure.

For the public, this means the process is extended. For the parties, it means the evidence is presented and assessed again. At this stage the court establishes the facts, and it rules on guilt only at the end of the main hearing.

The event that is the subject of the proceedings occurred last year. An investigation and an indictment followed. The trial has since entered the evidentiary stage, where it now stands.

What comes next in the trial?

The court has scheduled the continuation of the main hearing for September 21. Further evidence is expected to be presented by then. This is the standard course of proceedings in cases of this gravity.

In the continuation, the remaining experts and witnesses are usually heard. The defense and the prosecution propose evidence, and the panel decides what will be presented. Closing arguments and the verdict follow only after the evidentiary process is complete.

Until a final decision, the defendant is presumed innocent. The expert findings are one piece of evidence, but the court weighs them together with all other evidence presented. The final judgment on responsibility rests with the panel in its verdict.

A first-instance verdict need not be the end. The dissatisfied party has the right to appeal to the court of appeals. Only after that can the proceedings become final.

How long, in your view, should a trial for the gravest crimes take so that it remains both thorough and fair?