There was a judge involved, Otto Brixner was his name. Brixner sent Mollath off to a padded cell in 2006 for being deranged and confirmed/extended that a couple

There was a judge involved, Otto Brixner was his name. Brixner sent Mollath off to a padded cell in 2006 for being deranged and confirmed/extended that a couple of times. Then five or six years later it turned out that at least some of the deranged ramblings about tax evasion and white-collar crimes were correct. Further, Brixner had spoken to the relevant investigators before he sentenced Mollath, Brixner denied having done that, and when someone leaked paperwork that proved that Brixner's denial was a lie, he refused to talk about what was said. As I recall, there was also other questions. Wasn't there something about where Mollath's possessions ended up, and Brixner refused to talk about that too? In such a state, Mollath's possible guilt becomes irrelevant. Only an impartial court can sentence, and the border is between "trusted impartiality" and "not trusted". This is why judges are required to recuse themselves if there is a possibility that they may be thought partial, instead of e.g. if they can be proved to be partial, or if the balance of evidence suggests that they may.