Witnesses Without Added Value – Defense Requests Closure of Evidence Phase to Save Costs

Defense: Facts Have Been Sufficiently Clarified

According to the defense, the current evidentiary proceedings have already led to a thorough clarification of all essential aspects of the case. Further evidence is unnecessary and, in the defense’s view, no longer meaningful.

“No substantial contribution to truth-finding can be expected from additional witnesses who have not yet been heard,” the motion states.

The defense also emphasized that the Stuttgart Regional Court itself had suggested terminating the trial on the charge of attempted fraud as early as March 12, 2025. Nevertheless, the proceedings continued — without yielding new insights.

“It is unclear what further summoning of witnesses is supposed to achieve. Continuing the trial increasingly appears disproportionate.”

Witnesses Without Added Value – "Ballhof" Mix-Up Causes Laughter

Since the chamber’s suggestion on March 12, 2025, several police officers, tax officials, and supporters have been called to testify. Their statements largely confirmed previous accounts — without bringing forth new incriminating evidence.

Even the professional platform staatsanzeiger.de summarized the courtroom atmosphere with the headline:

“Ballweg Trial: ‘Are you Mr. Ballhof?’ and other amusing moments.”

The defense sees no factual progress in continuing the proceedings, but rather a case study in procedural inefficiency.

Reference to Principles of Procedural Economy

The motion refers to consistent rulings by the Federal Court of Justice, which stress that evidence gathering is not an end in itself. A balance must be struck between the expected gain in knowledge and the effort required to continue proceedings.

“Efficiency and the principle of procedural concentration must be observed as part of a process-economic approach.”

Background of the Case

The case against Michael Ballweg involves allegations of attempted fraud and attempted tax evasion. In October 2023, the Stuttgart Regional Court declined to open the main proceedings on the original fraud charges for factual reasons. The indictment was subsequently revised — but the known weaknesses remain.

The defense sees the requested closure of the evidence phase as an opportunity to bring the proceedings to a swift conclusion — and avoid unnecessary costs for all parties involved.