Facts

Rejection of the Appeal Against the Admissibility of a Psychiatric Expert Opinion and the Refusal of Legal Aid Parties: - Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorneys Marco Schwartz and Elmar Wohlhauser - Respondent: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Fribourg Subject Matter: File Removal, Legal Aid Impugned Decision: Judgment of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg, Criminal Chamber, dated January 6, 2025 (502 2024 305 - 502 2024 306) Facts: - [A.] is being prosecuted for intentional homicide, possibly murder, serious bodily harm, and affray and has been in pretrial detention since April 5, 2023. - On March 11, 2024, a psychiatric expert opinion was prepared based on documents from the University Psychiatric Services of Bern (UPD). - [A.] applied for the removal of the expert opinion from the files, arguing that it was inadmissible due to a breach of professional secrecy. - The Public Prosecutor's Office and the Cantonal Court dismissed the application. - [A.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the removal of the expert opinion and all related documents from the files and the granting of legal aid. Reasoning: 1. Admissibility of the Appeal: The impugned decision is an interim ruling that can only be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court under the conditions of Art. 93 para. 1 FSCA. An irreparable legal disadvantage must be of a legal nature and cannot be remedied by a later favorable decision. The mere fact that evidence remains in the files generally does not constitute a legal disadvantage, as the appellant can raise their objections again until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Exceptions exist if the law provides for immediate removal from the files or if the illegality of the evidence is obvious. The appellant must assert a particularly significant legally protected interest in the immediate determination of inadmissibility. 2. Admissibility of the Expert Opinion: The appellant argues that the documents from the UPD are inadmissible due to a breach of professional secrecy. The Public Prosecutor's Office had requested the competent authorities to release them from medical confidentiality, and both the Health Department and the Government Council of the Canton of Bern had released the persons involved from professional secrecy. The Federal Supreme Court notes that the documents were not obtained in violation of Art. 140 CrimPC and that Art. 271 CrimPC is not applicable, as it concerns the voluntary disclosure of documents. The validity of the release from professional secrecy is a complex issue involving criminal and administrative law aspects. 3. Legal Aid: The appeal against the rejection of the application for the extension of legal aid to the appeal proceedings before the lower court is not independently challengeable. The appellant will have to challenge this together with the appeal against the final decision. 4. Decision: The appeal is not admitted. The application for legal aid is dismissed, and the court costs are imposed on the appellant. References to Judgments: - FSCA 148 IV 155 - FSCA 144 IV 127 - FSCA 141 IV 289 - FSCA 143 IV 387 - 7B_91/2024 - 7B_1/2023 - FSCA 140 IV 202 - FSCA 133 IV 335 - FSCA 139 V 600 - 7B_213/2024 -…