Zarina lawyers ask court to dismiss ecstasy case
Zarina lawyers ask court to dismiss ecstasy case
JAKARTA (JP): Defense lawyers for Zarina, a budding TV actress
charged with producing, possessing and distributing 29,677
Ecstasy pills, urged the West Jakarta District Court yesterday to
dismiss the case because the state prosecutors' indictment was
defective according to law.
The team of four lawyers in its rejection of last week's
indictment told the court the prosecutors had failed to support
their accusations against the defendant with details.
The lawyers argued the indictment which accused Zarina, whose
real name is Zarima Mir Mirafsur, of illegally producing and
distributing drugs, did not mentioned where and how the Ecstasy
was produced.
The prosecutors also failed to mention how and to whom the
products were distributed by the defendant, the lawyers said.
They also said the prosecutors had failed to mention the legal
conditions under which the drug could be produced, or any books
on the standardization of the production when they accused
Zarina of producing it in such a way as to violate the Indonesian
Pharmacopoeia.
"This means the indictment is incomplete and vague," the
lawyers said.
The lawyers said Ecstasy, like the pills allegedly possessed
by Zarina, was listed in the Indonesian Pharmacopoeia as a drug
not for public distribution.
Amir Syamsuddin, one of the lawyers, said Zarina's case had
been blown out of all proportion and this had tarnished her
image.
"She has been nicknamed the 'Ecstasy Queen' by the press
becoming a victim of the violation of the principle of
presumption of innocence," Amir added.
Amir said because her questioning by the Tangerang police
officers had been widely publicized by TV stations she had been
hurt her and this had caused her to flee.
Zarina, appearing in black long dress, was calm during
yesterday's hearing. She busied herself reading the lawyers'
written statement and smiled occasionally to lawyers Amir, O.C.
Kaligis, Nurhasyim Ilyas, and Henry Yosodiningrat.
Judge Sumantri announced yesterday the court's rejection of
the lawyers' request last week for Zarina to be placed under home
or city arrest because it did not see any important reason for
changing the status.
"We do not see the urgency of putting the defendant under home
arrest and she escaped when she was in police custody," Sumantri
said.
Lawyer Henry said the team of lawyers would once again request
the judges to put their client under home arrest, instead of in
the state-owned detention house. (13)