After the new shit show that was the second day of hearings of the Ulm 5, the families and friends issued a press release with some lawyers’ statements. It is printed in full below.

The second session of the show trial against the Ulm 5 was held on Monday the 11th of May in the same security room in the same high-security building in Stammheim, and we experienced a time warp.

Yet again the human rights defenders Crow, Vi, Leandra, Zo and Daniel were brought into a bulletproof cage and yet again in handcuffs. Yet again the presiding Judge Kathrin Lauchstädt refused to hear any of the lawyers’ motions, and yet again the trial date was cut short by an angry judge, and yet again the public was promptly kicked out by heavily equipped security personnel.

Indeed, in the Horror Picture Show Trial that is the case against the Ulm 5, everyone is involved in the show. From the state actors, mainly the 5 judges and prosecutor, playing the role of 0% legal and 100% political Staatsräson, to the team of 11 lawyers who are acting in sync and trying to bring the voice of reason and get a fair trial for their defendants, to the Ulm 5, who despite 8 months of terrible pre-trial detention conditions have retained the courage, dignity and smiles (all three rare commodities in Germany these days), to the now also integral part of the show: the public.

And we all played our parts. The German state, as deaf and blind as always to fair demands, denied hearing all motions presented by the defence until after the charges were read. These motions included: the motion that the defendants sit next to their lawyers and be able to communicate privately (as is the norm in any fair trial); the motion for the defence to have their own transcribers (as German courts do not have transcriptions of the proceedings, and what goes on record is decided by the judge—and this judge has already not included most of the lawyers’ demands from the first day of the hearing); the motion for the public to be able to take notes (as is the law in Germany); the motion for journalists to take audiovisual footage (now we only have photos and videos of the Ulm 5 in a glass cage with handcuffs); and the motion for fair press, since the court took away the press kits the lawyers were handing out to the press present the first day of the trial, with information about the Ulm 5 and their motivation.

The 11 lawyers played the part of the hero assembly trying to fight for justice in an impossible situation. The judge, this time aware of how bad she looked last time for not letting them talk, was pretending to be nicer. She let them turn their microphones on to present their motions, just to dismiss hearing them again, and again, and again, and again until after the charges were read. But as the lawyers have said repeatedly, after the charges and opening statements, it is just too late to be heard on whether they can sit together. Irreparable damage will have been done.

The Ulm 5, in the role of unwilling victims of the German repressive state, showed more compassion and dignity than the German state has shown in the last 3 years. We got to hear, mostly through the translators, the powerful voices of Vi, Leandra, Zo, Daniel and Crow. The judge managed, despite great difficulties and issues with the translation equipment, to establish the Ulm 5’s identities. Noticeably, she asked the Irish defendant Daniel if they were British, potentially starting the Troubles again. And she asked shamelessly—after being directly responsible for keeping them for no real reason in pre-trial detention for 8 months—if their current addresses were the jails they are subjected to live in. We heard 4 of the 5 faintly through the glass, and their translators, but we got to hear Vi’s powerful voice and wit, since they spoke in their native German.

The public this time was even more part of the show than last time. To the standing ovations every time the 5 walked in (we had several interruptions) and chants of “Free the Ulm 5,” they added a powerful Palestinian liberation song—the one the Ulm 5 sang the day of the alleged action—and hummed it later in the second part of the day’s show after lunch. The gallery also burst into laughs when the judge miss-countried Daniel. They kept their cool and cheer during the long day’s waiting periods. We came in at 9:00, left at 16:00, and although we had only a 1.5-hour lunch break, the total time of actual hearing was not even two hours. In a turn of events, what prompted the judge to call it a day was this time the public: after two lawyers made powerful statements, remarking on the obvious, that it is a show and sham trial and that she is too biased to preside over the trial, the public burst into applause. This caused the judge to lose whatever cool she had left and kick us all out.

We all had the feeling of having lived this before, because we did, on the first day of the shit show that is this trial.

If this perversion of justice continues, the damage will be permanent, not only to this trial, but to the whole German legal system itself. One has to wonder: how much more is Germany going to debase itself defending the indefensible? Israel’s right to commit genocide.

Second “Ulm 5” trial date shut down by judge; lawyers pursue defendants’ constitutional and human rights

Next scheduled trial date: 20th May 2026

‼️ Press release from families & friends of the Ulm 5 with statements from the defence lawyers – 12th May 2026, Stuttgart-Stammheim

https://ulm5.info/en/blog/2026/05/12/family-press-release-12-may-2026

11th May 2026 finally saw the second trial day for the ‘Ulm 5’ at Stuttgart-Stammheim, after the presiding judge had suddenly interrupted proceedings on 27th April and cancelled the next two trial dates. The Ulm 5 are accused of trespass and property damage at the Elbit Systems site in Ulm, south-west Germany. Elbit Systems is the provider of over 80% of arms for the genocide in Gaza. Prosecutor also alleges membership in a criminal organisation.

The five defendants, despite defence counsel protests that fair trial rights were being violated, were once again marched in by law enforcement, in handcuffs, into a glass cage. They were greeted with supportive clapping and cheers from the public gallery. The court sitting, scheduled for 9am-5pm, again began 1.5 hours late. With four breaks (one of almost 3 hours), actual proceedings took place for less than two hours.

Presiding judge Kathrin Lauchstädt finally granted defence counsel the right to speak, having refused this on the first trial day. The lawyers argued their motions must be heard immediately, as they addressed irreversible rights losses. These included seating arrangements that prevent confidential lawyer-client communication; permission for the defence to take a detailed note of proceedings (there are no transcripts for most German trials); inadequate simultaneous translation; permission for defendants to take notes themselves; and freedom of the press. Yet after an extended performance of consultation the judge again summarily rejected the defence’s right to make every single application.

These are not minor procedural matters; rather, the defence argues, they go to defendants’ fundamental constitutional rights. See also quotes from 3 of the 11 defence lawyers below.

Once again, the trial never progressed to opening statements by prosecution, defence and defendants. Only the defendants’ personal details were established. Yet even this basic task exposed the gross inadequacy of the communication arrangements as information needed to be repeated several times, leading to confusion and delays. One of the defendants could even be heard in the public gallery when she spoke with defence counsel via the intercom. As long as fundamental issues repeatedly raised by defendants and defence counsel are not addressed by the court – particularly the inability of defendants to communicate confidentially with their lawyers and the lack of note-takers for the defence – there appears to be little hope proceedings will progress on future trial dates.

Previously, we expressed our fears that the Ulm 5 were facing a show trial. Yesterday, during the hearing, the defence also described proceedings as a ‘show trial’ (Schauprozess). Yet, up to now, with the court determined not to admit any perspectives from the defence, it has been mainly a show of force from the court, and very little trial.

Once again we call for international trial monitoring to ensure the Ulm 5s’ constitutional and human rights are upheld. It is not just the Ulm 5, but also German justice that is on trial at Stammheim.

Statements from defence lawyers for the Ulm 5 – 12th May 2026

Nina Onèr, defence counsel for Zo:

The defence renewed its efforts today to bring its most urgent and pressing concerns to the attention of the court; these are, in particular, seating arrangements and the admission of note takers.

The defence cannot concentrate on its primary task without a team of note takers. There is no verbatim record of proceedings at the Regional Court (Landgericht). But the court has so far, and for no objective reason, denied us a note-taking team. A written record is exceptionally important to us, especially with regard to a possible appeal. The exclusion of note takers is not just a demonstration of power, but a substantial restriction on the defence.

Also, the issue of the seating plan, to which we objected on multiple occasions before, during, and after yesterday’s hearing, cannot simply be postponed until an arbitrary time set by the court, after the prosecutor has read the charges. An irreversible loss of rights arises if the defendants cannot follow the trial with their lawyers at all times.

It is our duty as the defence to ensure the agency of the accused, as this court is violating their rights as accused and thus their fundamental constitutional and human rights.

After last week, when the court did not even give us right of audience, today it became bogged down in a cycle of directives, opinions, and orders, simply because it refuses to resolve the most rudimentary organisational matters.

We could have been conducting this trial – alongside our clients – in an appropriate courtroom of the Stuttgart Regional Court for two weeks now. Instead, the trial is further delayed by unnecessary interruptions and disciplinary measures.

The fact that the presiding judge, after all this, even pretended that her interests aligned with those of the defendants and the defence is contemptuous in the extreme.

Mathes Breuer, defence counsel for Leandra:

The court has once again proven that it does not care about the rights of the Ulm 5. The court denied our applications to sit with our clients and thus denied any possibility for confidential communications during the trial. The court has violated the right to fair trial in a way that is irreversible.

Benjamin Düsberg, defence counsel for Daniel:

The State Security Chamber did not shift its position on the second day of the trial and continues to reject basic constitutional standards. As defence lawyers we will not stoop to being party to the sham legitimation of a show trial.