This case was striking for our observers in how blatantly it showed the preferential treatment – both in terms of personal interaction and sentencing – white defendants can receive in criminal courts. In this case, a woman caught with 15 small bags of cannabis comes away with a relatively mild fine sentence, an outcome we find would be very unlikely if the defendant had been racialized.

To start, it is surprising to us that this case would be charged as a possession case, without a charge around the intended supply, given the quantity of cannabis. In controlling people who are racialized and migrantized, if drugs are found, even in far lower quantities, police assume the person is a supplier or attempt to force a confession of supplying. Here, in the interaction the defendant had with the police, she was able to maintain – and have the police accept – that all of the cannabis she had was for her own use.

Another aspect that was not expanded upon at trial but which struck us as unusual was that though the defendant was a non-German citizen (she is from another European country and is a native German speaker), she was not held pretrial or sentenced in a fast-track court (and held in jail pending trial). We would find this to be unjust had it happened, but we also see it happen all the time to people on low-level charges solely because the court deems them a flight risk for having non-German citizenship, even when they are from other European countries.

The defendant is treated exceptionally well by the court, even being told she would be allowed to bring her baby into the courtroom during the trial. In contrast, we have observed multiple cases with racialized defendants who are told that they are not allowed to bring their small children inside the courtroom with them.

The defendant, a woman in her 30s, arrives at the courtroom with a partner and small baby, who wait outside as she enters the courtroom. She seems somewhat at ease and positions herself next to her attorney. (Defendants are usually told to sit in front of their attorneys facing the judge, not benefiting from being able to speak with their lawyer easily and privately or from the comfort of having someone by their side.)

As the trial begins, the judge tells the defendant that her baby can come into the courtroom if she’d like, “Well, it’s okay, babies cry, the baby can come in.” The woman responds that it is probably better if the baby does not come in.

The woman is currently receiving parental benefits and works in healthcare. She will soon return to work. We learn that she was stopped by police and found with 15 small bags of cannabis. Her attorney reads a statement on her behalf which details how she had purchased this amount so that she could have a stock of cannabis at home because at the time, before her child was born, she was using cannabis regularly. The attorney goes on to state that the woman no longer uses cannabis and is a good mother who wants to get back to her work, and who regrets what she did.

Afterwards, the prosecutor speaks up. They note that the amount of cannabis is over the statutorily recognized threshold for a low quantity (nicht geringe Menge). Mitigating circumstances include that the woman has no prior offenses. The prosecutor mentions a sentence of three months (maybe meaning prison converted to probation), but then says that because the woman has a daughter, she would suggest a fine of €1,200.

Next is the defense attorney who suggests a slightly lower fine because cannabis is a “soft drug” that will soon be legalized. The defendant follows by apologizing.

The judge sentences the person to a fine of just under €1,000. Starting by voicing empathy, the judge says that the woman was addicted before because of stress but is now “clean”. It is unclear how the judge comes to this conclusion. He continues that the quantity was high but that cannabis is a “soft drug”. Importantly, he says he knows it will not happen again, noting that the defendant has worked in healthcare for ten years and lives a “normal bourgeois life.”