STA, 16 April 2019 - Milko Novič has been acquitted of murdering Chemistry Institute boss Janko Jamnik in December 2014 in a retrial after the Supreme Court quashed the original ruling sentencing him to 25 years in prison in 2017.
Our earlier coverage on this case can be found here
The verdict was reached by the judging panel of the Ljubljana District Court and announced on Tuesday after the court heard closing arguments and re-examined expert witnesses who could not make a conclusive judgement.
It also heard the minutes of the recent crime scene reconstruction which showed that Novič did not have enough time to reach the crime scene from his home in the window between his alibi and the time of the murder.
Reading the judgement, the presiding judge Zvjezdan Radonjić, said the trial proved that Novič was not a murderer, and that it was clear he could not reach the crime scene within the time at his disposal.
"Not only that there's no proof that he is guilty, but it has been fully proven that he is not the perpetrator," the judge concluded.
The prosecution, which sought a 25 year prison sentence, in accordance with the original sentence given to Novič, announced an appeal, while Novič said he was happy with the outcome.
"The case turned out the way it was based on arguments and, above all, judge Zvjezdan Radonjić's ascertaining that the prosecution has not provided a single piece of evidence," the acquitted said.
Novič, a former employee at the National Institute of Chemistry, was initially convicted of murdering his boss and sentenced to 25 years in prison in April 2017.
However, after being upheld by the Ljubljana Higher Court, the ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court in October 2018 and a retrial was ordered.
Jamnik was shot in the head twice in a parking lot in Ljubljana as the institute held its Christmas party in December 2014. He died three days later and Novič was soon arrested as the main suspect.
The minutes of the reconstruction of the events, read by judge Radonjić today, showed that it would take Novič between 11 and 14 minutes to reach the crime scene, or between 15 and 18 minutes in the pre-Christmas period when the traffic is much busier.
The judge said the time available for the defendant to commit the murder would have been 8 minutes at the most, while the Supreme Court, in quashing the case, said the time could be even shorter, that is six minutes.
"No measurement whatsoever could have put the time within six or eight minutes," the judge said before the judging panel retreated to reach a verdict, adding that the time was measured by the route that was the least favourable for the defendant.
He rejected the prosecution's assessment that the reconstruction was conducted in a "too touristy" pace. Prosecutor Blanka Žgajner had assessed that the actual events would have likely happened much faster than reconstruction had shown.
In reading the verdict later, Radonjić also cited data from mobile base stations pinged by Novič's phone at the time of the murder which he said did not indicate Novič's guilt, because he did not find it likely Novič would have responded from the crime scene to humorous text messages he was being sent.
The judge indicated that Jamnik's murder could have been linked to another case in which Lebanese chemist Michel Stephan is tried for allegedly ordering the murder of another Chemistry Institute official, Janez Plavec. He urged the prosecution to start looking into developments at the institute.
Radonjić also alleged pressure against him, saying that right from the start of the trial the court's president, Marjan Pogačnik, had been pressured to discipline him so he would judge the way he should.
He alleged that one of those who suggested his disciplining was Harij Furlan, the head of the Specialised Prosecution Service. He also said that he was subject to a smear campaign in the media.
The judge said that, because he wanted to grant a fair trial to Novič, he would never get promoted and would likely face suspension: "Novič having a fair trial hinges on my decision to ruin my career."
In her closing argument prosecutor Blanka Žgajner insisted the murder charge had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
She alleged that Novič committed the deed out of callous revenge because he was sacked from his job at the institute and because he had unfinished business with Jamnik.
After the verdict was announced, Žgajnar announced an appeal, saying she was shocked that "half of the explanation of the acquittal concerned judge Zvjezdan Radonjić, who talked about being pressured".
Commenting on the judge's suggestion that Jamnik's murder could be linked to Stephan, Žgajnar questioned the judge's right to interfere in another judge's case.
Novič's defence counsel Jože Hribernik commented that "everyone is in a bit of shock", saying that the judge had pinpointed the essential when talking about pressure on him.
"The man who has been convicted and who has been premeditatedly intended to be convicted again is free today," Hribernik said, adding that although he knew there was pressure, he was shocked by how severe the pressure on the judge was.
He agreed with the judge that Stephan may have "done away with Jamnik", saying he believed there was plenty of evidence this was likely. Meanwhile, his client would not speculate about the possibility.
Hribernik had already argued in his closing statement that the charges against his client were not a fateful mistake but rather a wilful decision on the part of law enforcement to convict an innocent man instead of the actual murderer, who could not be found.
The German expert witnesses re-examined by the court today could neither confirm nor rule out that the traces of gunpowder on Novič's clothes and skin proved he was the murderer.
The judging panel turned down the prosecution's motion to appoint new expert witnesses for ballistics and chemistry.
The hearing today witnessed friction between the presiding judge and the lawyer of Jamnik's wife as the damaged party, Miha Kunič, whom the judge would not grant the opportunity to question one of the German expert witnesses, while restricting his questions in the case of the other.
The newspaper Delo reported earlier that Kunič had filed a criminal complaint against the judge, alleging biased, unfair and unlawful judging.
Judge Radonjić accused Kunič of destructing the evidence-taking procedure, announcing that he would file a complaint against him with the Bar Association with the proposal for his expulsion.
