The Trial’s Competing Advocates

Leinen and Mattinger become opposing interpreters of the same record, each testing how far legal procedure can accommodate historical judgment.

increasingBearing stren­gth in each eventdecreasing

Advice From a Veteran

Advice From a Veteran A professional standard Mattinger urges Leinen to remain on the case and defend his client fully. He warns that personal history cannot be allowed to make the lawyer abandon a brief. Respectful distance The conversation combines mentorship with strategic awareness. Mattinger recognizes Leinen’s ability, while both understand that they may later oppose each other in court.

Images Against Collini

Images Against Collini A controlled examination Mattinger elicits a clear account of Meyer’s wounds and the killing. He does not need theatrical gestures; the details create a devastating image for the court. The young lawyer falters Leinen sees the trial’s initial narrative harden against his client. Mattinger’s command of courtroom communication makes the defense’s silence appear increasingly dangerous.

A History Answered With Law

A History Answered With Law Mattinger’s counterargument Mattinger challenges the portrayal of Meyer as a murderer and demands evidence about the legality of the executions. He calls Schwan to address the historical standards. Reframing the defense The accessory prosecutor makes the legal status of Meyer’s actions the center of the hearing. The conflict shifts from personal motive to the authority of law across generations.

A Cross-Examination Reversal

A Cross-Examination Reversal The question Mattinger left open Leinen asks who reported Meyer and why the investigation ended. Schwan clarifies that Collini made the complaint and that limitations, not a finding of lawfulness, closed the file. The argument changes sides Mattinger’s carefully staged inference collapses. The courtroom now confronts the difference between a valid legal barrier and a verdict of innocence.

Respect After Defeat

Respect After Defeat A candid acknowledgment Mattinger congratulates Leinen for defeating his argument and asks how he anticipated the expert witness. Leinen explains that he had researched the archive and prepared for the strategy. A continuing disagreement Mattinger still believes legal judgment should not simply follow the political mood of a later era. Their mutual respect survives, but their disagreement about justice remains.

Before the trial begins

The first five days of the hearing

After Leinen’s wartime account

After the lunch adjournment

After the later hearing