Facts
The appellant [A.] was convicted in two judgments of the Cantonal Court of Zug dated 21 November 2013 and 30 November 2017 for commercial fraud, qualified breach of trust, and forgery of documents. On 20 November 2019, he filed a request for revision, claiming that he had provided evidence of the bias of public prosecutor [B.] based on an expert opinion by a linguist. The Cantonal Court did not enter into the request for revision, as it was manifestly unfounded. The Federal Supreme Court confirms the decision of the Cantonal Court. The expert opinion is not a new piece of evidence relevant for revision, as the appellant had the opportunity to submit such an expert opinion earlier. Furthermore, the Cantonal Court had already examined and rejected the allegations of bias against public prosecutor [B.] in a previous proceeding. The Federal Supreme Court therefore sees no violation of the right to be heard or a formal denial of justice.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that for a revision, new facts or evidence are required that are suitable to lead to an acquittal or a significantly more lenient sentence. However, the expert opinion of the linguist is not a new piece of evidence, as the appellant had the…