Depardieu’s lawyer takes advantage of trial deferral to criticize prosecutor’s ‘biased’ investigation – Technologist

Without the leading actor, Gérard Depardieu’s trial did not take place. The 75-year-old was due to appear before the 10^th chamber of the Paris Criminal Court on Monday, October 28, to face charges of two alleged sexual assaults, which the plaintiffs claim took place during the filming of Jean Becker’s The Green Shutters in 2021.

The two plaintiffs, an assistant director and a set designer, were present, seated in the front row. Actress Anouk Grinberg, who starred in the film, and Charlotte Arnould, the first woman to file a rape complaint against Depardieu in 2018 – the Paris public prosecutor’s office had requested in August that he be referred to the criminal court for the case – were also there to support them. Outside the courthouse, around 200 demonstrators against violence against women formed a noisy welcoming committee. Depardieu did not turn up.

The request for adjournment had reached the court four days earlier, accompanied by medical certificates from a cardiologist and a diabetologist. These documents mention “blood pressure,” “sciatica,” “lumbar osteoarthritis,” “cruralgia,” and “significant risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia,” in short, a deterioration in his health “linked to the imminence of the hearing,” unfortunately deemed incompatible with his presence.

Given the circumstances, Carine Durrieu-Diebolt and Claude Vincent, lawyers for the two plaintiffs, soberly acknowledged this last-minute request: “It’s in nobody’s interest for the hearing to take place without him being present.” Just as soberly, the public prosecutor requested that the hearing be rescheduled “as soon as possible.”

Twenty minutes of monologue

A little less restrained, Jérémie Assous, the actor’s lawyer, already certain of obtaining the continuance he had requested, launched into what could have been his closing argument had the trial gone ahead. He sharply criticized the prosecutor’s “completely biased” investigative methods, and those of online investigative media Mediapart, which exposed the case. He deplored the “18 defense witnesses dismissed” by the investigators, whom he intends to call to the stand, and sparked whispers of disapproval from a packed courtroom when he referred to the plaintiffs’ “contradictions,” and “the pseudo-assault, the hypothetical assault, the alleged assault” they had allegedly suffered.

“I’m reminding you that you’re arguing on a request for a continuance,” the presiding judge reminded him after 20 minutes of monologue. It was in vain, as the argument over the quality of the investigation and the merits of the case continued for another 20 minutes.

You have 14.37% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.