1 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 244, para. 2.Google Scholar

2 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066, 66 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1058, 1063, 1068 (Mar. 19, 2013).Google Scholar

3 Section 257c StPO has the following wording (in English translation):Google Scholar

1. (1)

   (1) In suitable cases the court may, in accordance with the following subsections, reach an agreement with the participants on the further course and outcome of the proceedings. Section 244 subsection (2) shall remain unaffected.Google Scholar

2. (2)

   (2) The subject matter of this agreement may only comprise the legal consequences that could be the content of the judgment and of the associated rulings, other procedural measures relating to the course of the underlying adjudication proceedings, and the conduct of the participants during the trial. A confession shall be an integral part of any negotiated agreement. The verdict of guilt, as well as measures of reform and prevention, may not be the subject of a negotiated agreement.Google Scholar

3. (3)

   (3) The court shall announce what content the negotiated agreement could have. It may, on free evaluation of all the circumstances of the case as well as general sentencing considerations, also indicate an upper and lower sentence limit. The participants shall be given the opportunity to make submissions. The negotiated agreement shall come into existence if the defendant and the public prosecution office agree to the court's proposal.Google Scholar

4. (4)

   (4) The court shall cease to be bound by a negotiated agreement if legal or factually significant circumstances have been overlooked or have arisen and the court therefore becomes convinced that the prospective sentencing range is no longer appropriate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of guilt. The same shall apply if the further conduct of the defendant at the trial does not correspond to that upon which the court's prediction was based. The defendant's confession may not be used in such cases. The court shall notify any deviation without delay.Google Scholar

5. (5)

   (5) The defendant shall be instructed as to the prerequisites for and consequences of a deviation by the court from the prospective outcome pursuant to subsection (4).Google Scholar

Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 257c (translation taken from http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/).

4 Introduced by the Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [Act on the Regulation of Negotiated Agreements in Criminal Proceedings], July 29, 2009, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] at 2353.Google Scholar

5 Such agreements were, however, already widely in use before, but they were merely based on a kind of case law by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 240/97, 43 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 195 (Aug. 28, 1997); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. GSSt 1/04, 50 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 40 (Mar. 3, 2005).Google Scholar

6 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1070 (as translated by the authors).Google Scholar

7 Strafrechtsausschuss der Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer [Penal Law Commission of the German Federal Bar], Vorschlag einer gesetzlichen Regelung der Urteilsabsprache im Strafverfahren, 25 BRAK-Stellungnahme 2005 (Sept. 2005), available at http://www.brak.de/zur-rechtspolitik/stellungnahmen-pdf/stellungnahmen-deutschland/2005/september/stellungnahme-der-brak-2005-25.pdf.Google Scholar

8 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

9 Strafrechtsausschuss des deutschen Anwaltvereins [Penal Law Commission of the German Bar Association], Soll der Gesetzgeber Informelles formalisieren?, Strafverteidiger Forum 89, 90 (2006).Google Scholar

10 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 5 StR 237/97, 17 Strafverteidiger [StV] 561 (Sept. 3, 1997). This decision was reviewed critically in a case note by Stefan König, 18 StV 113 (1998) and affirmatively in a case note by Gerhard Herdegen, 53 Juristenzeitung 54 (1998).Google Scholar

11 See BGH, Case No. 5 StR 237/97.Google Scholar

12 See generally Rainer Hamm, Wert und Möglichkeiten der Früherkennung richterlicher Beweiswürdigung durch den Strafverteidiger, in Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren: Festgabe für Karl Peters aus Anlass seines 80 Geburtstages 169 (Klaus Wasserburg et al. eds., 1984).Google Scholar

13 Id.; Ulrich Sommer, § 244, in AnwaltKommentar StPO margin nos. 151–52 (Wilhelm Krekeler et al. eds., 2d ed., 2010); Stefan König, § 244, in Gesamtes Strafrecht: StGB, StPO, Nebengesetze – Handkommentar margin no. 4 (Dieter Dölling et al. eds., 3d ed., 2013).Google Scholar

14 Especially, discussing the status of proceedings with the participants does not deliver grounds to challenge a judge because of prejudice, cf. Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 571/10, 31 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 590, 591 (Apr. 14, 2011).Google Scholar

15 See the draft law on a reform of criminal procedure of the parliamentary parties of the SPD and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and the Federal Ministry of Justice of February 2004, reprinted in 24 Strafverteidiger [StV] 228 (2004) and the opinion of the penal law commission of the German Bar Association on this draft law, Strafrechtsausschuss des Deutschen Anwaltvereins, Stellungnahme Nr. 43/2004, 30–32.Google Scholar

16 Translation taken from http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/.Google Scholar

17 The existence of a legal norm explicitly allowing such discussions at least symbolically increases their importance. Apart from this, Section 257b StPO allows for extensive interpretation, see infra Part C.Google Scholar

18 BGH, Case No. 4 StR 571/10; Strafrechtsausschuss des Deutschen Anwaltvereins, supra note 15, at 31.Google Scholar

19 See Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [Act on the Regulation of Negotiated Agreements in Criminal Proceedings], July 29, 2009, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I].Google Scholar

20 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066.Google Scholar

21 Pursuant to Section 257c (2), sentence 2 StPO, “a confession shall be an integral part of any negotiated agreement.” Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 257c (2), sentence 2.Google Scholar

22 See Ernst-Walter Hanack, Vereinbarungen im Strafprozeß: Ein besseres Mittel zur Bewältigung von Großverfahren?, 7 Strafverteidiger [StV] 500, 501 (1987).Google Scholar

23 Stefan König, Das Geständnis im postmodernen, konsensualen Strafprozess, 65 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1915 (2012).Google Scholar

24 Hanack, supra note 22, at 501.Google Scholar

25 Id. (as translated by the authors).Google Scholar

26 Id. (as translated by the authors).Google Scholar

27 See Hans-Joachim Weider, Der aufgezwungene Deal, Strafverteidiger Forum 406, 408 (2003).Google Scholar

28 See the facts of the case Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 3 StR 266/07, 27 Strafverteidiger [StV] 619 (Aug. 14, 2007).Google Scholar

29 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice] Case No. GSSt 1/04, 50 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 40 (Mar. 3, 2005).Google Scholar

30 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1071.Google Scholar

31 On the historical developments described here and in the following, see generally König, supra note 23; Stephan Stübinger, Anmerkung zu BGH, Beschluss v. 6. 11. 2007, 1 StR 370/07, 63 JZ 800 (2008); Frauke Drews, Die Königin unter den Beweismitteln? Eine interdisziplinäre Untersuchung des falschen Geständnisses (2013).Google Scholar

32 See Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 261.Google Scholar

33 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 88/51, 1 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 105 (Apr 10, 1951) (still cautious); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 240/97, 43 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 195, 210 (Aug. 28, 2007) (extensive). For a critical overview on the overall development, see Walter Stree & Jörg Kinzig, § 46, in Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder eds., 28th ed., 2010), margin no. 41a; König, supra note 23.Google Scholar

34 This is a confession that is just motivated by the prospect of mitigation of punishment, especially in connection with a negotiated agreement.Google Scholar

35 This is a tactical confession that only refers to the alleged facts on which the indictment is based, admits all or some of those facts, and does not go into any detail beyond this admission; also called a “meaningless formal confession.” Cf. BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1063.Google Scholar

36 This is the slimmest confession possible. It consists of one sentence: “I confess to be guilty as charged,” which reportedly has been accepted in practice. See Malek, Klaus, Abschied von der Wahrheitssuche, 31 Strafverteidiger [StV] 559, 565 (2011).Google Scholar

37 König, supra note 23, at 1916; Malek, supra note 36; Ralf Eschelbach, § 257c, in Beck'scher Online-Kommentar: Strafprozessordnung margin nos. 20–24 (Jürgen Peter Graf ed., 16th ed., 2013).Google Scholar

38 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1063.Google Scholar

39 See the results of an empirical study carried out by Karsten Altenhain et al. for the Federal Constitutional Court: Comparison with the case files was used by 91.9 % of all judges to verify the confessions; often it was used without any further taking of evidence. Karsten Altenhain et. al, Die Praxis der Absprachen im Strafverfahren 100 (2013).Google Scholar

40 See generally id. Google Scholar

41 Id. at 134.Google Scholar

42 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066. The decision was, inter alia, reviewed by Stefan König & Stefan Harrendorf, “Deal”: Ein Freispruch auf Bewährung und seine Auswirkungen, Anwaltsblatt [AnwBl] 321 (2013); Hans Kudlich, Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu den strafprozessualen Absprachen: Konsequenzen für den Gesetzgeber?, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 162 (2013); Frank Meyer, Die faktische Kraft des Normativen: Das BVerfG und die Verständigung im Strafverfahren, 66 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1850 (2013); Martin Niemöller, Anmerkung zu BVerfG, Urt. v. 19.3.2013 – 2 BvR 2628/10, 33 Strafverteidiger [StV] 420 (2013); Carl Friedrich Stuckenberg, Anmerkung zu BVerfG, Urt. v. 19.3.2013 – 2 BvR 2628/10, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 212 (2013); Thomas Weigend, Anmerkung zu BVerfG, Urt. v. 19.3.2013 – 2 BvR 2628/10, 33 Strafverteidiger [StV] 424 (2013).Google Scholar

43 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 257c.Google Scholar

44 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1067–68. See also Weigend, supra note 42, at 424; Kudlich, supra note 42, at 164.Google Scholar

45 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1058–59.Google Scholar

46 Cf. id. at 1069.Google Scholar

47 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1063. See also Stefan König & Stefan Harrendorf, § 257c, in Gesamtes Strafrecht: StGB, StPO, Nebengesetze – Handkommentar margin no. 7 (Dieter Dölling et. al eds., 3d ed., 2013).Google Scholar

48 Altenhain et al., supra note 39, at 100.Google Scholar

49 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1063.Google Scholar

50 König & Harrendorf, supra note 42, at 321.Google Scholar

51 This was already the prevailing opinion before the decision of the Constitutional Court. See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 2 StR 205/10, 30 Strafverteidiger [StV] 673,674 (Aug. 4, 2010); Matthias Jahn & Martin Müller, Das Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren—Legitimation und Reglementierung der Absprachenpraxis, 62 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2625, 2630 (2009); Reinhold Schlothauer & Hans-Joachim Weider, Das “Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren” vom 3. August 2009, 29 Strafverteidiger [StV] 600, 601 (2009); Eschelbach, supra note 37, at margin no. 42.5. For the dissenting opinon, cf. Martin Niemöller, Anmerkung zu BVerfG, 1. Kammer des 2. Senats, Beschl. v. 05.03.2012 - 2 BvR 1464/11, 32 Strafverteidiger [StV] 387, 388–89 (2012).Google Scholar

52 Altenhain, et al., supra note 39, at 36–37, 77–89.Google Scholar

53 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1064–67.Google Scholar

54 See Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 257c (3), sentence 4.Google Scholar

55 König & Harrendorf, , supra note 42, at 322; Weigend, supra note 42, at 426.Google Scholar

56 This is possible in Germany, see Section 296 (2) StPO, since the prosecutor is legally required to do his or her work objectively, see Section 160 (2) StPO.Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 3 StR 411/04, 25 Strafverteidiger [StV] 201 (Jan. 12, 2005).Google Scholar

58 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 273 (1a), sentence 1.Google Scholar

59 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, § 243 (4) and 273 (1a) sentence 2.Google Scholar

60 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Apr. 7, 1987, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl. I] 1074, as amended, Ҥ 273 (1a), sentence 3.Google Scholar

61 These problems refer to the rule that a judgment can never be based upon a mere mistake in the record of proceedings, Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 5 StR 678/54, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 162 (Feb. 1, 1955), and to the possibility of a retroactive correction procedure even after an appeal has been filed. See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. GSSt 1/06, 51 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 298 (Apr. 23, 2007); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 5 StR 169/09, 55 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 31, 33–34 (Jan. 28, 2010); cf. König & Harrendorf, supra note 42, at 323 with further references.Google Scholar

62 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1064.Google Scholar

63 For the prevailing opinion, see Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 56/56, 10 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 294, 298 (Dec. 7, 1956); Lothar Kuhlen, § 339, in Nomos-Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch margin no. 90 (Urs Kindhäuser et. al eds., 4th ed., 2013). For the dissenting opinion, see, e.g., Ulrich Stein & Hans-Joachim Rudolphi, § 339, in Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, margin no. 1d (Jürgen Wolter ed., 8th. ed., Status: May 2013).Google Scholar

64 But see König & Harrendorf, supra note 42, at 324.Google Scholar

65 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1069–70. See also Kudlich, supra note 42; Niemöller, supra note 42, at 423–44; König & Harrendorf, supra note 42.Google Scholar

66 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/1066 at 1068.Google Scholar

67 Id. Google Scholar

68 König & Harrendorf, , supra note 42, at 322. See also Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 3 StR 39/11, 64 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3463 (June 30, 2011) (The court was able to change the defense strategy of the accused or even aimed at changing it.)Google Scholar

69 König, Stefan & Harrendorf, Stefan, § 257b, in Gesamtes Strafrecht: StGB, StPO, Nebengesetze – Handkommentar margin no. 6 (Dieter Dölling et. al eds., 3d ed., 2013).Google Scholar

70 BGH, Case No. 3 StR 39/11.Google Scholar

71 König & Harrendorf, , supra note 42, at 322.Google Scholar

72 Strafrechtsausschuss des Deutschen Anwaltvereins, Stellungnahme Nr. 46/2006, 14.Google Scholar

73 König & Harrendorf, , supra note 69, margin no. 3; Petra Velten, § 257b, in Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung margin no. 2 (Jürgen Wolter ed., 4th ed., 2012) (consenting); Marc Wenske, § 257b, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung margin no. 8 (Rolf Hannich ed., 7th ed., 2013) (dissenting).Google Scholar