[ad_1]
Nemanja Stamenkovic’s trial (20) at the Nis Court of First Instance began more than two and a half months after the accident on Mediana Boulevard in Nis, when, according to the indictment, a boy and a man were killed by an “audio” . at a speed of “at least 130 km / h”, due to a serious act against traffic safety. The prosecutor points to violent driving as one of the main causes of the accident, while the lawyers of the victims’ relatives demand a change in the classification of the crime. At today’s first hearing in the proceedings, the defendant pleaded not guilty. He does not remember many details, as he said during his testimony. The case is being followed by a large number of interested parties in accordance with the measures for the fight against the coronavirus epidemic.
Serious objections were raised to the expertise and speed taken into account by the Basic Prosecutor’s Office (OJT), and the aggrieved demanded that the accused be tried for knowingly committing a crime where, in that case, the penalty would be two to two. 12 years in prison, instead of the maximum sentence of up to eight years he faces under the indictment.
The lawyer for the injured parties, Bratislav Stojanović, previously presented objections to the classification of the criminal offense, that is, he asked for the possibility of proposing a change in the classification, as well as the amount of the sentence threatened.
The defense of the accused driver believes that the previous investigation was short-lived. They agree that a traffic expert should be questioned directly. They also believe that the defendant’s neo-psychiatric neuropsychiatric experience is, taking into account that he is a younger adult, to determine his condition, then and now.
Stamenkovic initially pleaded not guilty at the request of the judge, but does not dispute that the accident occurred.
The prosecution of the Public Ministry indicates that he had knowledge of himself on January 4 at the time of the accident, with two underage girls in the car. He drove the vehicle with violence and endangered public traffic, without respecting the restrictions. The maximum speed limit on that boulevard is 60 km / h, and he was driving, according to the indictment, at least 131 km / h.
The prosecutor provided details on the injuries of the minor Andrej Prekljušaj and Dejan Ilić, of which the child was at the scene.
All the injured parties state that they point to the legal claim of property, “but they do not determine it by type and amount and will carry it out in special procedures.”
The defendant said that he had not been convicted nor was any other process being carried out against him.
The families of the two victims are present at the trial.
Witness Dragan Ognjanović also attended, while the others justifiably did not.
The prosecutor proposed that police officer Aleksandar Mihajlović be called as a witness.
The defendant’s lawyer requested that, as he said, numerous falsehoods presented in the media be re-examined, in the sense of whether they would influence the procedure, because “several complaints cannot be used as necessary.” He is also seeking official data from the Nis police on alleged arrogant driving reports prior to the accident.
He claims that he does not remember the moment of the accident, apologizes
The defendant said he did not remember the moment of the accident. He said that it seems to him that it started to “clear up” in front of his eyes a few seconds after the accident. He only remembers that he got out of the vehicle and does not remember, he says, what was the first thing he saw.
At first he apologized to the families, expressed his condolences and said that “all three families were harmed.”
“I remember driving according to the regulations and in the most normal way. I left the Duralan direction towards Trošarina, to pick up my friend Iva. After that, to pick up my friend Lana on Mokranjčeva street. After that, we headed to Mediana Boulevard. At one point, I began to roam the vehicle from a safe distance. The moment I went next, it seemed to me that the vehicle was heading towards me on the left, as if it was going to hit me. I was scared, I was in shock. Then I gripped the steering wheel with both hands and lowered my head. It is possible that I turned on the gas at that time to avoid a car accident, but I cannot fully state that. “After that, I felt cramps in my neck and body muscles and I just started to lose my orientation in space,” he said.
Then, he says, he felt “like a noise in his ear” and “objects started running before his eyes.”
“The next thing I remember is that I got out of the vehicle because I needed air to recover them, but I don’t know what happened next (). I really don’t know how long my condition I found myself in lasted. I have no guidance in that regard. What I remember is that I was sitting and crying, probably when someone told me there was an accident. That is all I remember. Also, that road is like a highway, one of which is a stop. I know him very well, I often come and go home. That’s all I can say in my defense, “Stamenkovic said.
When questioned by the defense attorney, the defendant claims that he had experience driving on such a road, which looks like a road, and that the limit of said road is 130 km / h.
“So far I have not had any incidents on those roads,” he replied.
When asked by the prosecutor, he answered, among other things, that he had a license to drive motor vehicles for category C and D vehicles.
He says that he was driving at about 50 km per hour, and that the vehicle that was supposedly in front of him started to accelerate, so he went to overtake it.
The OJT opposes the defendant’s psychiatric examination, while the defendant’s defense considers that the law is clear and asks if the prosecutor has the necessary knowledge to assess whether his age corresponds to his age.
When asked by the judge why the proposal was not made earlier, the defendant’s defense attorney claims that he did not have a bathtub.
The prosecutor asserts that the accusation is based solely on facts and rejects the defense attorney’s allegations.
“All experience, even a psychiatric one, regardless of whether it is an experience of the perpetrator’s sanity or maturity, is determined when only the prosecution has doubts about it, and I had no doubt about it, and that agrees with the law. “, said the prosecutor. Vladimir Stanojevic also assessed claims that the investigation procedure was improperly carried out as inappropriate.
