“Each strike must be followed by a counterstrike.”

“Each strike must be followed by a counterstrike” is the principle Mattinger invokes when the defense’s portrayal of Hans Meyer as a cold-blooded murderer prompts him to seek expert testimony. In the courtroom, the phrase turns the dispute over evidence into a contest of reciprocal blows, while the judge’s immediate objection makes clear that a forceful argument does not itself authorize the next move.

The phrase in context

Mattinger raises the principle after telling Caspar Leinen that an accessory prosecution has a duty to protect the victim, whom he identifies as Hans Meyer rather than the defendant. He then holds up newspapers reporting the dreadful things Meyer did and argues that Leinen has successfully presented Meyer as a cold-blooded murderer. The proposed counterstroke is to call an expert who can assess whether Meyer really was a murderer.

Argument and consequence

Mattinger presents reciprocity as a reason to hear evidence before the court spends months establishing that the shootings occurred, only to find that they were justified. He asks to call the director of the German Federal Archives in Ludwigsburg, Dr Schwan, whom he says is waiting outside the courtroom. The phrase thus serves an immediate forensic purpose: it links the defense’s account of Meyer to a demand for evidence that might qualify or overturn that account.

The limit of the metaphor

The presiding judge calls the request highly unusual and points out that Mattinger has neither applied to produce the evidence nor been directed by the court to call Dr Schwan. The exchange places the image of counterattack beside the court’s procedural restraint. Mattinger frames the next evidentiary step as a response demanded by the previous one; the judge insists that the response still requires proper authorization.