Oki should not be prosecuted here: Lawyers<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The lawyers of Harnoko Dewantono alias Oki who
\nis on trial for a triple murder in Los Angles, U.S., said at the
\nCentral Jakarta District Court yesterday that it is beyond the
\njurisdiction of the Central Jakarta Prosecutor's Office to
\nprosecute the defendant.<\/p>\n
\"It is certainly not that we want the defendant to be
\nacquitted from the charges, but it is rather part of our
\nresponsibility to remind all of us to keep from misapplying the
\nlaw,\" said one of the lawyers, Henry Yosodininggrat.<\/p>\n
According to the indictment, Oki, 32, murdered his Indian
\nbusiness partner Suresh Gobind Mirchandani on Aug. 19, 1991, his
\nIndonesian woman friend Gina Sutan Aswar on Nov. 2 1992, and his
\nyounger brother Ery Tri Harto Dharmawan.<\/p>\n
The 14-page rebuttal titled Dakwaan Imajiner (Imaginary
\nIndictment), read by lawyers Henry Yosodiningrat and Nurhasyim
\nIlyas, also stated that the dossier on Oki was inconcise, unclear
\nand incomplete so as to have raised doubts about the indictment.<\/p>\n
The team of nine lawyers said that according to Article 173 of
\nCriminal Code, the Jakarta Provincial Prosecutor's Office and
\nCentral Jakarta Prosecutor's Office do not have the authority to
\nprocess any crimes committed beyond their jurisdiction. The
\ndossier on Oki thus violates Article 143 paragraph 2(b) of the
\nCriminal Code. Article 143 paragraph 3 states that a dossier by
\nthe public prosecutor should be concise, clear and complete and
\nmust otherwise be rejected.<\/p>\n
Henry said before the court presided over by IGK Sukarata
\nthat, beginning with Suresh's murder, the prosecutors had created
\na serial of murder stories resembling those of Agatha Christie's.<\/p>\n
\"We did not find any information from witnesses or experts,
\nletters, clues or the defendant's explanation (as legitimate
\nevidence required by Article 184 of the Criminal Code) that can
\nbe used as the material or basis to indict the defendant,\" Henry
\nsaid.<\/p>\n
\"Without mentioning the months, the indictment is incomplete.
\nMentioning dates is very important if charging someone with
\npremeditated murder, say for instance the purchase of the gun
\non May 1, 1991,\" Henry said.<\/p>\n
The charges also claim Oki killed Suresh because he had failed
\nto pay monthly installments for the dry cleaning service he
\nbought from the defendant. The statements are also obscure as the
\nprosecutors did not mention what months Suresh had defaulted on
\nhis payments, the lawyers said.<\/p>\n
In response to the indictment of slaying Gina Sutan Aswar,
\nNurhasyim Ilyas, who read the rebuttal later, said that not
\nenough evidence had been given by the prosecutors. \"There's even
\nno witnesses or other evidence that can be used against the
\ndefendant. Neither did the prosecutors state exactly when all the
\nboxes used to keep the victim 's body were prepared and by whom,\"
\nNurhasyim said.<\/p>\n
The indictment on slaying the defendant's own younger brother,
\naccording to Nurhasyim, is libelous and obscure. The place and
\ntime of the event are not specified clearly, he said. \"This shows
\ndoubts, and it is harmful to the defendant's legal rights,
\nespecially when the defendant needs an alibi.\"<\/p>\n
The trial was adjourned until July 16 to hear the prosecutors'
\nreply to the rebuttal. (26)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/oki-should-not-be-prosecuted-here-lawyers-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}