First Hearing in a Criminal Case: Defense Preparation, Evidence Requests and Hearing Strategy

The first hearing in a criminal case is the session at which the defendant's identity is established, the charge is explained, their rights are reminded and, if they are ready, they are questioned. Evidence may be discussed, witnesses may be heard, and a decision may be made on detention or judicial control. If the file is ready for judgment, the case may also be concluded at the first hearing. Preparation therefore covers not only what will be said, but also which document will be reviewed, which evidence will be requested and when each procedural right must be used. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK), Arts. 175–177, 190–193, 206–223

This guide has been prepared for defendants and their defense counsel in criminal cases heard in Türkiye under the general rules of criminal procedure, in both courts of first instance for criminal cases (asliye ceza) and heavy criminal courts (ağır ceza). The position of the victim and of the participant (katılan) is different. Special procedures that can be decided without a hearing and the rules specific to children should be assessed separately. The first session of a case and an earlier questioning of the defendant elsewhere are not the same situation; preparation depends on the current stage of the file.

How are the indictment and the file reviewed before the first hearing?

Acceptance of the indictment opens the public action (kamu davası) and the trial begins. Acceptance does not mean that the offense has been proven or that a conviction is final. The court decides by assessing lawfully obtained evidence presented at the hearing. Hearing preparation should not be limited to repeating statements made during the investigation. The connection between the person, the act and the evidence in the indictment should be reviewed again. CMK, Arts. 175, 217, 223

The alleged act matters as much as the name of the offense

First, the date and place of the event, the conduct attributed to the defendant, the victim and the statutory provisions to be applied are identified. If there are several defendants or offenses, each person and each act is assessed separately. How a phone, bank transaction or witness statement belonging to someone else is linked to the defendant is questioned. The legal classification in the indictment does not bind the court; however, a judgment may only be given about the person and act whose elements are set out in the indictment. A change of classification, on the other hand, raises additional defense safeguards. CMK, Arts. 225–226

A workable preparation starts with a short timeline of events: which facts are accepted, which are rejected, and about which there is no information. Then the contested element of the offense is identified. For example, that a transaction took place is a different question from whether the defendant carried it out with the required intent. If the defense is reduced to a general denial, these distinctions may remain invisible in the file. Equally, unnecessary assumptions or details whose accuracy is unknown should not be added to the defense.

Access to the file and meeting with the lawyer

From the moment the indictment is accepted, defense counsel may review the content of the file and the evidence held in custody, and may obtain copies of records and documents without paying fees. A restriction order during the investigation does not automatically remove the right of review at this stage. The list of documents in the UYAP electronic case system should be compared with the attachments that can actually be opened. The existence of an expert report does not necessarily mean that the underlying image or digital data is also accessible. CMK, Art. 153(4)

If an attachment is missing, a record cannot be opened or a document is unreadable, access should be requested by stating which file could not be reviewed and why. Its effect on defense preparation and the time needed are explained. A private meeting with defense counsel for a detained defendant is also part of the preparation. A lawyer present only on the hearing day does not remove the need for prior file review and consultation. For the scope of defense counsel assistance, see the explanatory article on the role and importance of the lawyer in criminal cases. CMK, Arts. 149, 154

Notification and time needed to prepare the defense

The indictment is served on the defendant together with the summons. There must be at least one week between service of the summons and the hearing date. If this period has not been observed, the defendant is reminded of the right to ask for an adjournment. Notifying the hearing date by telephone, text message or electronic communication does not in itself produce the consequences the law attaches to a summons. The service record, the date of dispatch and the legally effective service date must be kept distinct. CMK, Arts. 176, 190(2)

One week is not enough preparation in every file

The statutory minimum and the time genuinely needed to prepare a defense in a specific file are not the same measure. Many defendants, an extensive technical report, newly opened digital records or a newly appointed defense counsel may require more time. A request for more time should not stop at describing the volume of the file; the documents to be examined and the work to be done must be explained. Legal writing also indicates that the time needed should be assessed together with the complexity of the file, detention, defense assistance and the stage of the proceedings. Erdoğan, pp. 1471–1476

The periods in the table relate to different procedures. For counting days and weeks, see CMK, Art. 39; for appeals, Art. 273 and Provisional Art. 6 are read together. The five-day rule for notifying evidence does not mean that late-raised evidence may be rejected solely on grounds of delay; this distinction is explained below. CMK, Arts. 18, 39, 177, 207, 226, 273 and Provisional Art. 6

The real decision: a complaint about time by a defendant who declared readiness

Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Abdullah Sabri Kocaman, Application No. 2013/4030, October 16, 2014: The Court considered together that, at a session held after apprehension, the defendant was reminded of the right to additional time but did not request it, stated in the presence of counsel that they were ready to defend, and made their defense at subsequent hearings. The complaint that no time had been given for the defense was found manifestly unfounded and the application was declared inadmissible. This does not mean that every early questioning is lawful. If preparation is insufficient, the act that could not be carried out and the reason for requesting time must be clearly recorded. Decision §§40–52

Is attendance at the first hearing mandatory?

The rule is that the defendant must be present. A defendant who does not attend without a valid excuse may be made the subject of an order to bring them by force, subject to statutory exceptions. Sending a lawyer alone or submitting an excuse petition does not automatically remove the obligation to attend. If there is illness or another serious obstacle, the way it prevents attendance must be explained with documents, and the court's decision must be followed. CMK, Arts. 193, 197, 199

Trial in absentia and exemption from attendance

CMK Art. 193(2) allows a case to be concluded in absentia, even if the defendant has not been questioned, where the evidence collected requires a conviction, a decision that no penalty be imposed, or a decision other than a security measure. This provision should not be read as an unlimited permission for every non-conviction decision. For offenses that require only a judicial fine or confiscation, the special summons conditions of CMK Art. 195 form a separate exception. CMK, Arts. 193, 195

A defendant who has been questioned may be exempted from attending the hearing, at their own request or at the request of a defense counsel authorized for this purpose. A court decision is required. Questioning through judicial assistance (istinabe), that is through a judicial authority in another place, and participation through the remote hearing system (SEGBİS) are different methods. For judicial assistance, the limitation in CMK Art. 196(2) applies to offenses whose statutory minimum is five years' imprisonment or more; for audio-visual participation, the mandatory condition in Art. 196(4) is assessed. CMK, Art. 196

Remote hearing (SEGBİS), interpreters and effective participation

In remote participation, it is important that the defendant can hear what is said, see the proceedings, confer with defense counsel and make statements. Problems such as a broken connection or a document that cannot be shown on screen should be recorded in the minutes, stating which step they affected. A request to be physically present must also be made with concrete reasons; a SEGBİS decision and an exemption from attendance do not replace each other. CMK, Arts. 147, 196, 219–221

A defendant who does not know enough Turkish to make themselves understood is provided with an interpreter, and the interpreter's fee is borne by the Treasury. The situation of a defendant who, although they know Turkish, states that they express themselves better in another language and wishes to make their defense in that language at the stages the law specifies, is regulated separately under CMK Art. 202(4), and the cost regime differs. Foreign citizenship alone does not determine which provision applies. If there is a claim of error in interpretation, the wrong expression and the correct meaning must be explained immediately. CMK, Arts. 202, 324(5)

What happens at the first hearing?

At the start of the hearing it is determined whether the defendant, defense counsel and the witnesses and experts who were summoned are present. The decision accepting the indictment is read. The defendant's identity is then established, information about their personal and economic situation is taken, and the acts on which the charge rests, the evidence and the legal classification are explained. If a defendant who has been informed of their rights states that they are ready to make a statement, questioning takes place. Under the current regulation, explaining the charge does not mean that the entire indictment must be read word for word in every case. CMK, Art. 191

Procedural issues to raise before questioning

An objection to territorial jurisdiction must be raised in the court of first instance before questioning. A challenge to a judge for known reasons that cast doubt on impartiality must, as a rule, be made before questioning begins; for reasons that arise or are learned later, the challenge must be made within seven days of learning them and before the hearing or review ends. Subject-matter jurisdiction (görev) and territorial jurisdiction (yetki) should not be confused. Procedural objections should therefore be identified while the file is reviewed, not remembered after questioning is over. CMK, Arts. 18, 25

Mandatory defense and the right to remain silent

Not every criminal file requires a chosen lawyer. However, defense counsel is appointed without request for children who have no counsel and for persons with defense difficulties specified by law. Mandatory defense also applies to offenses carrying a minimum prison term of more than five years. A defendant who states that they are unable to choose defense counsel is appointed one on request. A request for pretrial detention requires defense counsel assistance. Where several defendants are defended by the same counsel, the appropriateness of their interests must be examined. CMK, Arts. 101(3), 150, 152

The defendant has the right not to make a statement about the offense charged; however, they must answer identity questions truthfully. Silence cannot be presented as an admission of the offense. Oral statements, written defense and evidence requests may be planned together, depending on the circumstances of the file. In mandatory defense, the absence of counsel, appointment, and unexcused non-attendance are assessed under the special provisions of CMK Arts. 151 and 188; the general approach that "every procedure is carried out even if the lawyer does not attend" is not correct. CMK, Arts. 147, 151, 188, 191 Constitution, Art. 38

How are written and oral defenses prepared?

A written defense should set out the court and file information; the responses to the allegations; the explanations of the evidence; the records to be requested; and a clear statement of the outcome sought. Giving the document date and the relevant page for each claim helps the court locate the disputed point. In an oral defense, rather than repeating the written text, the decisive facts, the points that have been misunderstood and the decisions to be taken at that session can be emphasized.

Denying the charge and asking, on a conditional basis, for a judgment favorable to the defendant are different levels of defense. Primary and alternative requests should be built with this distinction made visible. "Acquittal" and "no penalty to be imposed" are not the same result; the type of judgment depends on the elements of the offense, lawfulness, fault and the state of the proof. A failure by the defendant to prove innocence is not enough for a conviction. Constitution, Art. 38 CMK, Arts. 217, 223

If there is a contradiction with an earlier statement

The earlier statement should be read. If a genuine contradiction exists, its concrete cause should be explained: a mistranslation, a record error, memory, or a new document. Constructing a new account of events in order to hide a contradiction weakens the defense. The earlier records against which differences between the defendant's statements may be discussed are governed by CMK Art. 213. CMK, Art. 213

A statement taken by law enforcement (kolluk) without defense counsel may not be used as the basis of a judgment unless the defendant confirms it before a judge or court. This special rule does not mean that all earlier statements are automatically disregarded. Statements obtained through torture, threats or other prohibited methods cannot be assessed as evidence even if the person consents. An objection must state which record it targets and which concrete unlawfulness it alleges. CMK, Art. 148

How are evidence requests made concrete?

CMK Art. 177 provides that, to summon a defense witness or expert, and to collect other defense evidence, an application must be made at least five days before the hearing, stating the facts to be proven. For a witness, their name and address matter as much as what they directly know. For a record, the type matters as much as who holds it, the date range it covers and its effect on the file. CMK, Arts. 177–179

This table contains hypothetical working examples. If a camera recording may be deleted quickly, a request for preservation and production should be made without waiting for the first hearing. Instead of "all records should be brought", the place, the date and the institution holding the record should be specified. Searching for documents by unauthorized access to private accounts is not an appropriate way to collect evidence; lawful access or a request for production by the court is what is assessed. CMK, Arts. 177, 206(2)(a), 217(2)

Late-notified or rejected evidence

A request to produce evidence cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it was notified late. However, this rule does not mean that every late request will be accepted. Evidence unlawfully obtained, evidence with no effect on the outcome of the fact to be proven, or a request whose sole aim is to prolong the case may be grounds for rejection. The reason for the delay and the effect of the evidence on the outcome should be explained together. CMK, Arts. 206–207

For a witness or expert whose summons has been rejected, CMK Art. 178 provides for bringing them to the hearing; limits remain for requests aimed solely at prolonging the proceedings. Even so, whether the witness is actually heard, and the reason given for rejection, must be followed. The defense should have its concrete objection to the rejection of an evidence request recorded in the minutes and, in the available remedies, explain its effect on the outcome. CMK, Arts. 178, 221, 289(1)(h)

Objection to an expert report and expert opinion

The data and method on which a report relies must be examined as much as its conclusion. An objection should target a specific point, such as an incorrect time range, a missing comparison, a document excluded from examination or a technical method. When the report is completed, a period is given for an objection or a request for a new examination; if the request is rejected, a reasoned decision is issued. The expert may also be requested to be heard at the hearing. A party may obtain a scientific opinion from its own expert; however, the special provision that no separate time may be requested for this reason alone should not be overlooked. CMK, Arts. 67–68

The right to put questions to witnesses and real Constitutional Court decisions

Defense counsel may put questions directly to a witness, in a manner consistent with hearing discipline; the defendant may ask questions through the presiding judge or judge. Before asking, it should be determined whether a question tests observation, hearing, identification, or time and distance conditions. The aim is not to draw the witness into argument but to test the reliability of the account. If the proof of an event rests solely on one witness's statement, reading out an earlier record does not replace hearing that witness. The statutory exceptions and the fair-trial safeguards are assessed together. CMK, Arts. 201, 210–211

The deficiency leading to a violation in the İ.S. decision

Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), İ.S., Application No. 2021/8272, June 11, 2025: The statement of a witness heard through judicial assistance (istinabe) was treated as decisive for the conviction and the determination of the sentence. The defendant had not been allowed to put questions; it had not been explained why the witness was not heard at the hearing or through SEGBİS; and it had not been shown that the defense benefited from safeguards that could remedy this deficiency. The Court found a violation of the right to examine witnesses and ordered a retrial. The decision shows that the existence of other evidence does not remedy every lack of witness questioning; it does not directly mandate acquittal. Decision §§18–32, 35–38

Why no violation was found in the Habil Faruk Eren decision

Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Habil Faruk Eren, Application No. 2022/30775, June 25, 2025: The majority, taking into account the weight of the statements the applicant had made in the presence of defense counsel and repeated before the judge, did not treat the witness accounts that were not tested by questioning as the sole or decisive evidence, and found no violation. The dissent emphasized the effect of the witnesses in particular on the determination of an increased sentence. Decision §§22–29 and dissent

Read together, these two decisions point to a concrete question for the defense: is the statement of a witness who could not be questioned merely a record in the file, or is it a decisive basis that affects the finding of guilt or the amount of the penalty? A request for a hearing must explain this effect; the questions to be asked, the contradictions, and why the written statement is insufficient should be shown. The difference in outcome between the two decisions cannot be read as meaning that every file automatically results in a violation or automatically in rejection.

Can a detention or release order be made at the first hearing?

For a defendant who is not detained, detention may be ordered if the conditions are met; for a detained defendant, release or continued detention may be ordered. Being summoned to the first hearing does not mean that one will be detained. For detention, a strong suspicion of an offense based on concrete evidence, a ground for detention and proportionality are examined. The reason why judicial control would be insufficient must also be justified. The existence of a catalogue offense (katalog suç) does not create an automatic obligation to detain. CMK, Arts. 100–101

A release request should not be limited to the sentence "has a fixed address". Concrete facts about the risk of flight or of interference with evidence, the evidence collected, the length of detention and personal circumstances such as health should be linked to the file. Where appropriate, specific judicial control options are explained. Release is not acquittal; unless judicial control is lifted, the related obligations continue. A release request does not need to wait for the first hearing. CMK, Arts. 104, 108–111 For more on this topic, see the article on maximum judicial control periods.

For a decision subject to objection in relation to detention, the general objection period, unless the law provides otherwise, is two weeks from the date the decision is learned of under CMK Art. 35. The current time-limit regime applies to decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024. The objection is lodged with the authority that issued the decision; the authority that will review it is determined according to the court that issued the decision. An objection does not in itself secure release. CMK, Arts. 101(5), 267–269 and Provisional Art. 6 On this topic, the article on maximum detention periods may also be consulted.

Judgment and additional defense at the first hearing

The law does not require a second session in every criminal case. If the evidence has been completed and discussed and the defense safeguards have been provided, a judgment may be delivered at the first hearing. On the other hand, the desire for a quick outcome does not remove rights where evidence is missing, time is needed or attendance is a problem. There is no fixed number of minutes a hearing will take, nor a fixed number of sessions a case will need, that applies to all files. CMK, Arts. 190, 206–223

If the legal classification of the offense changes

If the court is considering a different legal classification, the defendant must be notified and given an opportunity for additional defense under the conditions of CMK Art. 226. It matters that a circumstance increasing the penalty, or one requiring an additional security measure, appears for the first time at the hearing. Time is given to prepare the additional defense upon request. Under the current Art. 226(4), notices are given to the defendant and, where applicable, to their defense counsel; where notice cannot be given to the defendant's last address in the file, or the defendant does not attend despite notice, notice to defense counsel is sufficient. The different statutory wording of older decisions should not be used in place of the current rule. CMK, Arts. 225–226

Response to the opinion and the final word

The prosecutor's opinion on the merits (mütalaa) is not a judgment. If the opinion contains a new assessment, evidence or classification, these are identified and the time needed for preparation is requested. There is no fixed one-week period under the law for every response to an opinion. Giving the present defendant the final word before judgment is a separate safeguard; defense counsel having spoken first does not remove it. CMK, Arts. 216, 226

Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu), February 17, 2009, E.2008/1-172, K.2009/26: In this decision, the court quashed a judgment on the ground that the defense had been restricted, because the defense counsel present was not given the final word after the prosecutor's statement at a final session at which the defendant was absent. The decision shows that the order in which the parties are given the floor is not a mere formality. The old additional-defense provision quoted in the decision should not be applied verbatim to explain today's notification procedure. Reasoning and result of the decision

By contrast, in 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 4. Ceza Dairesi), September 25, 2025, E.2023/5200, K.2025/14464, the chamber did not find the defense objection well-founded. It noted that the defendant brought to the last session had been given an opportunity to make statements on the merits and a final word, and that no request to widen the investigation had been made. The judgment was upheld after a separate recidivism issue was corrected. This outcome does not mean that every earlier deficiency is cured by the final word; the objection must specify what it is and which safeguards were provided during the proceedings. Sections III–IV of the decision

Minutes and steps after the hearing

The hearing record is the basic record of requests, decisions and procedures. How the hearing was conducted and whether the procedure was followed are proven, as a rule, by the record; the law provides a route for claiming that the record is forged. If an incomplete or incorrect entry is noticed, an explanation and correction should be requested immediately, and it should be confirmed that any written petition was submitted to the file. A personal note prepared later does not replace the official record. CMK, Arts. 219–222

Recording a hearing on a personal phone is not an alternative to checking the record; the prohibition in CMK Art. 183 and its statutory exceptions must be observed. The rule that hearings are open as a rule does not mean that personal information in the file may be published without limit. For a defendant under eighteen, the rule of closed hearings also applies. CMK, Arts. 182–185

Not every interim decision is independently open to objection. An objection to a detention decision, and bringing the rejection of an evidence request before the appeal court together with the judgment, are different things. For an appealable judgment, the general current period is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. While awaiting service, the hearing record and substantive objections can be prepared. Raising constitutional complaints in ordinary proceedings and in suitable remedies also matters for later applications; an individual application is not a direct review route for every interim decision. CMK, Arts. 267, 273 İ.S., §34(vi)

Attorney fees and litigation costs

There is no single attorney fee that applies to all files for the first hearing; the scope of the work and the fee arrangement with a chosen defense counsel are determined separately. The appointment of defense counsel by the bar is subject to the conditions in the CMK. For litigation costs, the expenses of experts, witnesses and other procedures, as well as tariff-based attorney fees, are assessed. The judgment states on whom the costs are imposed. CMK, Arts. 150, 324–325

There is an exception for a person who is acquitted, or for whom a decision that no penalty be imposed is made, regarding costs arising from their own fault. The absolute statement that "an acquitted person never pays any cost under any circumstances" should therefore not be used. If a special expert opinion is to be obtained, its scope and cost should be clarified in advance. For representation and preparation in a specific file, the scope of the firm's criminal defense services can be assessed. CMK, Arts. 67(6), 327

Conclusion

In a first hearing, effective defense makes the decisive questions of the file visible: what act is attributed to the defendant, which evidence supports it, which record is missing, and what procedure is requested from the court? Service and preparation time, attendance, questioning of witnesses, additional defense and the record are complementary safeguards. Before the hearing these headings should be matched with documents; after the hearing, requests, decisions and deadlines should be followed. The strength of a defense lies less in its length than in its ability to explain the disputed point in the file, with its legal basis and a concrete request.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a judgment be delivered at the first hearing in a criminal case?

Yes. If the file is ready for judgment and the defense safeguards have been provided, a judgment may be delivered at the first hearing. Not every file requires a mandatory second hearing.

What can be done if the indictment arrives a few days before the hearing?

The at-least-one-week period between service and the hearing is checked. If the period is short, the right to ask for an adjournment should be pointed out. Time may be requested by explaining the need for preparation and the documents that could not be reviewed.

If my lawyer attends the hearing, do I not need to go?

Attendance by a lawyer alone is not enough. The rule of presence, the statutory exceptions and any exemption decision are considered together.

Can I use my right to remain silent at the hearing?

You have the right not to make a statement about the charge. The obligation to answer identity questions truthfully is separate. Silence does not mean an admission of the offense.

I did not give the witness list five days in advance; can my witness not be heard?

Late notification alone is not sufficient ground for rejection. The fact the witness will prove and its effect on the outcome must be explained. Other grounds for rejection, such as unlawfulness, irrelevance or a purely delaying aim, are assessed separately.

Can I put questions to a witness myself?

The defendant may ask questions through the presiding judge or the judge. Defense counsel may ask questions directly, in a manner consistent with hearing discipline.

Can release be requested at the first hearing?

Yes; it can also be requested before the first hearing. The conditions for detention, the concrete evidence and the adequacy of judicial control are assessed according to the file. Release is not acquittal.

Must I make my defense immediately once the prosecutor's opinion is announced?

If preparation is needed, a reasoned request for time can be submitted. There is no automatic fixed one-week period in every file. A change of classification that requires an additional defense is assessed separately.

Is it enough for my lawyer to speak the final word?

A present defendant must be given the final word before judgment. Defense counsel having made submissions does not remove this right.

If a conviction is given at the first hearing, what is the appeal period?

For appealable judgments issued on or after June 1, 2024, the general period is two weeks from service of the reasoned judgment. Whether the decision is open to appeal and the valid date of service must also be checked.

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), particularly Arts. 18, 25, 39, 67–68, 100–111, 147–154, 175–226, 267–269, 273, 289, 324–327 and Provisional Art. 6. Current consolidated official text.
2. Law No. 2709, Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Arts. 36 and 38. Official text.
3. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Abdullah Sabri Kocaman, Application No. 2013/4030, October 16, 2014, particularly §§40–52. Full text of the decision.
4. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), İ.S., Application No. 2021/8272, June 11, 2025, particularly §§18–38 and the dissent. Full text of the decision.
5. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Habil Faruk Eren, Application No. 2022/30775, June 25, 2025, particularly §§22–29 and the dissent. Full text of the decision.
6. Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu), February 17, 2009, E.2008/1-172, K.2009/26, reasoning and result. Ministry of Justice decision text.
7. 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 4. Ceza Dairesi), September 25, 2025, E.2023/5200, K.2025/14464, Sections III–IV. Ministry of Justice decision text.
8. Yağmur Müge Erdoğan, "Savunmayı Hazırlamak İçin Gerekli Zamana ve Kolaylıklara Sahip Olma Hakkı (AİHS m.6/3-b)", Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 75(2), 2026, pp. 1447–1529; section consulted pp. 1471–1476. Journal record and open-access text.