The Lawyer's Duty and the Killer's 'Right'

There is a certain clinical logic to the legal profession that can seem jarring to the outside world. This was starkly illustrated in a recent Basel-Landschaft courtroom, where a former Social Democratic politician, Christian von Wartburg, argued on behalf of a man who had brutally killed his wife. His political party, of course, champions women's rights and campaigns against femicide, a detail that adds a layer of exquisite irony to the proceedings.

The case itself was brutal and, in its conclusion, straightforward. In May 2026, the court sentenced the man to life imprisonment for the 2024 killing of his wife in their Binningen home. The verdict is not yet final, but the facts presented left little room for doubt. What captured public attention, however, was not the crime itself but the nature of the defense.

Von Wartburg’s strategy was audacious: he claimed his client acted in self-defense. This narrative painted the murdered woman as the aggressor, alleging she had attacked her husband with a knife. The defense even brought up past incidents, such as the wife supposedly throwing a shoe at him, in an attempt to portray her as volatile. It was a classic, if crude, attempt to shift culpability.

The court was thoroughly unimpressed. It systematically dismantled the self-defense argument, noting a complete absence of supporting evidence. Expert reports contradicted the claim, and crucially, the defendant himself had failed to mention any such attack in his initial account of the events. The strategy was not just unsuccessful; it was obliterated by the facts.

Faced with accusations of victim-blaming, von Wartburg remained resolute, appealing to a higher principle. He argues that every individual, no matter how heinous the alleged crime, is entitled to a robust defense. It is a lawyer's duty, he insists, to present any and all arguments that might exonerate their client, without fear of public backlash. To do otherwise, in his view, would be a betrayal of his professional conscience.

This position is the bedrock of any functioning state based on the rule of law, a concept the Swiss hold in particularly high regard. Yet it forces a difficult question: where does professional obligation end and moral responsibility begin? Defending the indefensible is part of the job, but actively constructing a narrative that vilifies the victim feels like a step beyond. One is left to ponder whether the abstract purity of legal principle offers adequate cover for tactics that seem so profoundly cynical.

Written by Andreas Hofer andreas.hofer@alpineweekly.com