Attorney Aziz Emre YILMAZ & Associates

Title: "The Unraveled Alibi"

In the case of Prosecution office  v. Thompson, I, Attorney Aziz Emre YILMAZ, had the privilege of representing Mr. Jason Thompson, a man accused of a high-profile robbery. The prosecution claimed to have an airtight case against my client, with multiple eyewitnesses placing him at the scene of the crime and a security camera footage seemingly confirming his presence.

However, I was determined to challenge this seemingly rock-solid case. After meticulous investigation and collaboration with a skilled team of experts, I began to uncover inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative.

Firstly, I discovered that the security camera footage had a time stamp discrepancy, which raised doubts about the accuracy of the entire timeline presented by the prosecution. Additionally, through careful cross-examination of the eyewitnesses, I revealed discrepancies in their testimonies and established that their recollections were not as reliable as initially claimed.

But the turning point of the trial came when I presented an alternative explanation for my client's presence at the crime scene. I unveiled a series of text messages and phone records that indicated Mr. Thompson had been in communication with a friend who was in dire need of assistance on the night of the robbery. This established a plausible reason for my client's presence in the vicinity and provided a strong alibi that countered the prosecution's narrative.

To further support this alibi, I called in an expert in cellphone tower triangulation, who testified that Mr. Thompson's phone was in a completely different location at the time of the robbery, corroborating the alibi and raising reasonable doubt about his involvement.

With the combination of the time stamp inconsistency, the unreliable eyewitness testimonies, and the solid alibi, the judge was left with reasonable doubt about my client's guilt. After a well-fought legal battle, the jury ultimately delivered a verdict of not guilty, and Mr. Thompson walked out of the courtroom a free man.

This case serves as a testament to the power of thorough investigation, meticulous preparation, and effective presentation in the criminal justice system. As a criminal lawyer, my commitment to seeking justice and my dedication to my clients' rights allowed me to dismantle the prosecution's case piece by piece, leading to a dismissal of the charges against my client.

In the compelling case of Prosecution Office v. Ramirez, I, Att. Aziz Emre YILMAZ, had the honor of defending Mr. Carlos Ramirez, a man accused of a heinous crime: murder. The prosecution painted a grim picture of my client as the prime suspect, relying on circumstantial evidence and a series of events that seemed to implicate him in the brutal killing of a prominent businessman.

Undeterred by the gravity of the charges, I embarked on a journey to uncover the truth and ensure justice was served. My unwavering commitment to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" formed the cornerstone of my defense strategy.

As I delved into the evidence, I discovered inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case. The prosecution relied heavily on the victim's blood found on a jacket belonging to my client, arguing that this proved his guilt. However, through meticulous examination, I revealed that the crime scene had been contaminated, leading to a contamination of the evidence itself. With the help of forensic experts, I demonstrated that the contamination raised doubts about the reliability of the blood evidence.

Furthermore, I meticulously reconstructed the events leading up to the murder, introducing an alternative theory that pointed to another potential suspect. Through careful cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, I highlighted their biases and potential motives to frame my client. The credibility of their testimonies came under scrutiny, and I managed to cast doubt on their accuracy.

To bolster my case, I presented an alibi that placed my client in a completely different location at the time of the murder. I summoned a series of witnesses and records that substantiated his whereabouts, providing a compelling counter-narrative to the prosecution's timeline.

During the trial, I delivered a passionate closing argument, emphasizing the principle of reasonable doubt and the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before rendering a verdict. The judge, swayed by the inconsistencies, the alternate theory, and the solid alibi, was left with no choice but to find Mr. Ramirez not guilty of the murder charges.

The verdict was a triumph of justice, a testament to the power of a dedicated defense and the importance of upholding the rights of the accused. The case of State v. Ramirez serves as a reminder that every individual is entitled to a robust defense, and that a skilled criminal lawyer can unearth the truth even in the most complex and seemingly damning situations.

Case Background:

Our client, a Latin American citizen, was detained at Istanbul Airport after arriving on an international flight. A search of the client’s suitcase revealed concealed packets alleged to contain narcotics (specifically a cocaine derivative). The prosecution charged the client under Article 188/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years and may escalate depending on the nature and amount of the substance.

Legal Defense Strategy:

Illegally Obtained Evidence – Violation of CMK Articles 147, 161, and 206:
The initial statement of the accused was taken without a qualified interpreter and without the presence of legal counsel, in clear violation of Article 147 CMK. Furthermore, the suitcase was opened without a judicial warrant or the client's consent, and without legal oversight. The forensic report was issued without defense observation, breaching procedural safeguards under Article 161. We filed a motion to exclude this evidence under Article 206 and invoked Article 38 of the Constitution, which prohibits the use of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings.

Lack of Mens Rea (Criminal Intent):
The defense provided concrete evidence—including WhatsApp conversations, travel details, and character references—showing that the client was unaware of the concealed material. The suitcase had been given to the client by an acquaintance under the pretense of a personal favor. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client knowingly and willingly imported the narcotic substance.

Attempt Stage – Article 35 TPC:
The defense further argued that even if the client's conduct were to be considered suspicious, the crime did not reach the completion stage, as the substance was intercepted before any distribution, sale, or entry into circulation in Turkey. Based on Article 35 TPC, penalties must be reduced if the act remains at the attempt stage.

Effective Remorse – Article 192 TPC:
During the investigation phase, the client cooperated with authorities, provided names and communication records of other individuals potentially involved, and expressed a willingness to assist ongoing transnational investigations. We submitted a request for sentence reduction or exemption based on effective remorse provisions under Article 192, which allows mitigation when the accused helps identify other perpetrators or aids in the prevention of future crimes.

Outcome:

Following multiple procedural hearings and detailed written submissions, the court determined that:

The key evidence was tainted by procedural violations and therefore inadmissible;

There was no definitive proof of criminal intent;

The offense, if any, remained in the preparatory/attempt stage;

The client had shown substantial cooperation throughout.

Accordingly, the court rendered a decision of full acquittal under Article 223/2-b of the Turkish Penal Code.

Conclusion:

This case exemplifies the importance of procedural integrity and the presumption of innocence in serious narcotics prosecutions. By meticulously challenging the legal basis of the evidence and emphasizing the subjective and objective conditions of the alleged crime, our team secured justice for our client—who faced a potential three-decade prison sentence.

At Attorney Aziz Emre Yılmaz & Associates, we are committed to defending constitutional rights and international standards of due process, even in the most complex and high-stakes criminal matters.

Defense Strategy:

Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility – Article 32 TPC:
Our client had a documented history of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, with medical records from prior hospitalizations. Family members had previously alerted authorities to the client’s deteriorating mental state, but no protective or medical action had been taken due to lack of legal grounds at the time. We argued that the act occurred during an acute psychotic episode, and thus the client lacked the cognitive ability to understand the legal meaning and consequences of their actions.
A motion was submitted under Article 32 TPC, requesting full or partial exemption from criminal liability.

Court-Ordered Forensic Psychiatric Examination:
Based on our submission, the court issued a referral to the Council of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp Kurumu) for an official psychiatric evaluation. The report concluded that the client was not fully criminally responsible due to a chronic psychiatric disorder and active psychosis at the time of the incident.

Exclusion of Custodial Penalty – Article 57 TPC:
Instead of imprisonment, we requested that the court issue a protective security measure and refer the client to compulsory inpatient treatment, pursuant to Article 57 TPC, which applies when the offender lacks full criminal responsibility due to mental illness.

Procedural Fairness and Pretrial Conditions:
During the pretrial detention phase, we filed objections regarding the suitability of prison conditions for someone with severe mental health issues. The client was transferred to a prison hospital and eventually released under judicial supervision, pending psychiatric review.

Outcome:

The court accepted the findings of the forensic psychiatric report, recognized that the accused lacked full criminal responsibility, and refrained from imposing criminal punishment. Instead, the client was ordered to undergo short-term psychiatric treatment under state supervision.

Conclusion:

This case demonstrates the importance of integrating medical, legal, and human rights perspectives in the criminal process. By intervening early, gathering credible psychiatric documentation, and presenting a structured legal basis under Articles 32 and 57 of the Turkish Penal Code, we successfully prevented the unjust incarceration of a mentally ill individual.

At Attorney Aziz Emre Yılmaz & Associates, we are committed to ensuring that our clients receive not only legal defense but also access to treatment, dignity, and due process, particularly when mental health intersects with criminal law.