Upheaval at the court in Vinkovci! The requests of Banožić’s defense and the married couple as witnesses were accepted

It is the first ‘victory’ of Banožićććć’s defense in the trial for causing the traffic accident from November 11, 2023, in which 41-year-old Goran Šarić died.

Banožić’s defense at the hearing on Tuesday pointed out that they are just getting to know the case and demand insight into some things in the file.

– Subject Banožić is one of the few cases in my career in which the defenders were not given access to CDs and media on which photos from the accident were recorded. Banožić is the only person who received a ban on access to the file from the court. We formally have the right to inspect the file, which has over 800 pages and we copied all of it in order to see if it contains a photo that the traffic expert received during the expert examination, and that is one photo that shows the speedometer of Šari’s Mercedes. And that photo is not in the file, nor are the other pictures from the DVD and CD media. Why was that documentation not included in the file, which was requested by the lawyer of Vržin, and why the state attorney’s office did not make any decision. The indictment panel did not give the defense access to those media either, but only gave the defense the opportunity to access it at a later stage of the proceedings, and this is now that stage – said one of Banozcaron’s lawyers, Marijana Tomičacute, at the beginning of the justification of the request.

The court finally accepted the defense’s proposal to provide them with photos on CD and DVD because the expert really based his findings on a photo that is not in the file.

As for the testimony of Biljana and Marijo Skoki, who themselves contacted Bano’s previous lawyer, the defense emphasizes that it is necessary to hear them as previously proposed witnesses.

– We don’t invite them to tell fairy tales. We have a list of calls from 112 where it is recorded that they received two calls from Biljana Skokić – added the lawyer. The court accepted their testimony because their call to the 112 center was indeed recorded.

They rejected the proposal for a toxicological expert examination, as well as the reading of Robert Spudi’s findings, because the council will make a decision on the implementation of a new combined medical-traffic-toxicological expert examination. They also rejected the proposal for a requested statement from Allianz insurance regarding the amounts paid.