Analysis of the verdict in the e-scooter trial: Why the court "only" imposed three years in prison

A motorist races through Frankfurt and captures three e-scooter riders. Two young men die, one is seriously injured. The driver has to go to jail for three years. Only three years?

Court reporter Heike Borufka accompanied the trial. She classifies the judgment. The case of the two 23-year-old twin brothers, who were hit and killed by a car in the city centre, has also occupied many people beyond the city limits of Frankfurt. On Wednesday, the verdict against the 24-year-old defendant was handed down before the Frankfurt Regional Court: three years' imprisonment.

The man had also captured a friend of the twins on his e-scooter, drawing him for life. Whether the verdict is appropriate or much too lenient was also intensively discussed in the hessenschau editorial team. The court clearly speaks of an accident The cause of the tragic death of the twins was a relatively normal accident with excessive speed and a steering error. There were no drugs involved and there was no escape from the accident.

The Criminal Division found this to be the case. What happened on the night of July 6, 2025? Young men from Bad Kreuznach are in Frankfurt, they are driving a father's car.

He hadn't allowed it. The young men sit on the Main, consuming nitrous oxide. The rush lasts only a few minutes, as an expert later says. When the father calls, it's well after midnight, they decide to go home immediately.

The defendant is sitting at the wheel, driving too fast. Perhaps because one of the passengers annoys him, as the court said in its judgment. Whether that was ultimately the reason has not been clarified. Perhaps it was also the fear of trouble with the father.

He drives 75 km/h instead of the permitted 50. When the Mainzer Landstraße narrows dangerously, he loses control. He first catches the e-scooter with the two brothers on the bike lane, then the second e-scooter with the brothers' 27-year-old friend. The man lands on the hood of the car, stays there for 1.2 seconds and falls down in front.

This is how the expert calculated it. The prosecution had assumed a much longer period in their indictment. She sees it as negligent killing and attempted murder. The verdict does not follow the human impulses In the process, we experience a man who cries when it comes to the victims - not when it comes to him.

Until the verdict, he keeps trying to apologize. He and his family have paid a lot of money as compensation, offered more. The defendant looks down all the time. The public prosecutor's office also emphasizes this in its plea.

She thinks he's ashamed, he shows genuine remorse. In the end, the chamber pronounces a courageous verdict, one that does not follow the impulse that most people have: Anyone who kills two people and injures another so severely that his lower leg has to be amputated must be severely punished. The chamber sees an accident; a tragedy that only losers know. The court follows the expert, who says that the defendant had had a massive accident shock and therefore simply continued stubbornly for ten minutes.

It was not a premeditated killing. The judges say that the defendant's injustice was that he did not get help after these ten minutes. They emphasize that the man was neither a racer - this was shown by the many video recordings of the crime scene - nor had he been under drugs - this is what the expert says. Even if it is difficult for many to bear, the Chamber does not have to judge the terrible consequences of the crime from a legal point of view, but on the question of what can be proven to the accused under criminal law.

The criminal trial is about injustice and guilt. The wrong is clear: the accused is responsible for the death of two people and the serious consequences of a third. The court blames the 24-year-old for not getting help. Even if it feels like it, it wasn't a premeditated killing.