Facts
The appellants, six individuals convicted of fraud and forgery, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of the Canton of Glarus. They claimed that their defense had been inadequate because they had all been represented by the same official defense counsel, who also represented other co-defendants. They requested that the contested judgments be annulled due to inadequate defense and that each of them be assigned a separate legal representative.
The appellants were convicted of fraud and forgery because they had concluded fictitious employment contracts with inactive and illiquid companies to receive insolvency benefits. The lower court had established that the appellants had concluded the employment contracts solely for show and had never worked for the companies.
Considerations
1. Right to defense: The appellants claimed that their defense had been inadequate because they had all been represented by the same official defense counsel, who also represented other co-defendants. However, the Federal Court ruled that the appellants had not demonstrated that their defense had been inadequate. The fact that the official defense counsel represented several co-defendants was not sufficient to assume inadequate defense.
2. Deceptive fraud: The appellants claimed that the lower court had not…