The State Prosecutor v. Anna & Josef Michel, Ernst Alt & Arnold Renz.

Citation:  Landgericht Aschaffenburg, Judgement of 21 April 1978. File No. Kls 4 Js 6880/76.

Court Name:  Aschaffenburg Regional Court, Germany.

Judge:  Elmar Bohlender.

Bench:  Criminal Trial Bench

Date of Judgement:  21st April, 1978.

Parties Involved: Petitioner: 

The Office of the State Prosecutor of Aschaffenburg, Germany.

• Respondents: 

1. Anna Michel, the mother of Anneliese Michel.
2. Josef Michel, the mother of Anneliese Michel.
3. Father Ernst Alt, a Catholic priest, was a part of the exorcism procedures performed on Anneliese Michel.
4. Father Arnold Renz, another catholic priest who was part of the exorcisms. 

Facts of the Case:

Anneliese Michel, born in 1952 in Klingenberg, Bavaria, began suffering from epileptic seizures in her teenage years. By the early 1970s, she had been diagnosed with temporal-lobe epilepsy, accompanied by symptoms of manic depression, hallucinations, and extreme religious guilt, documented by her physicians. She was treated with various anticonvulsant and antipsychotic medications; however, despite compliance, Michel continued to experience hallucinations and increasingly severe psychological disturbances. Her family did not like the term “mentally ill”, and she changed her medical consultant multiple times. 

By 1975, Michel, a student of theology at the University of Wurzburg, expressed an aversion to religious objects, claimed to see “demonic faces,” and reported hearing voices mocking her faith. Her parish priest, Father Ernst Alt, came to believe that Michel exhibited signs not sufficiently explained by psychiatry. In 1975, Alt formally petitioned Bishop Josef Stangl of the diocese of Wurzburg for permission to perform an exorcism. The bishop approved the request, authorising the ritual under the “Rituale Romanum”, the traditional Catholic exorcism rite.

Following this authorisation, 67 exorcism sessions were conducted by Fathers Alt and Renz between September 1975 and June 1976. ⁸ Many sessions lasted several hours. Audio recordings later presented in court captured screaming, growling, and voices attributed by Michel and the priests to demons such as “Lucifer,” “Judas,” “Nero,” “Hitler,” “Iscariot”, and an evil priest named “Fleischmann”.  A total of six demons had supposedly possessed her. Once the exorcisms commenced, Anneliese refused further medical treatment and requested her parents stop consulting with doctors and instead trust fully in the power of exorcism. During the exorcisms, she was, at times, forcibly restrained, and the autopsy report later indicated she had fractured teeth and bruised limbs in addition to blackened eyes, which are also visible in the horrific photographs that were taken during the exorcisms and are publicly available. The autopsy report concluded she had also broken her knees from constant genuflexion. Witnesses reported Michel performing hundreds of genuflections, leading to tendon injuries, engaging in self-harm, striking her head against walls, refusing food, and crawling under tables or barking like an animal. The demons supposedly caused her to roar and curse like a man.

On the day of the last exorcism, June 30, 1976, Anneliese Michel weighed between sixty-eight and seventy-two pounds, roughly 30 kilograms. Her last words were a request, “Please, absolution”, and “Mama, stay with me. I am afraid”. The next day, around 8 in the morning, Anna Michel found her daughter dead. The autopsy report declared the cause of death to be “advanced emaciation” owing to severe malnutrition, pneumonia and dehydration. 

Issues Raised:

• Whether the defendants’ reliance on religious belief and exorcism removed or diminished their legal duty to provide medical care to a person in a life-threatening condition.
• Whether Anneliese Michel’s refusal of medical treatment was legally valid, given her deteriorating mental state.
• Whether the parents and priests, through omission, caused Michel’s death by failing to obtain obviously necessary medical intervention.
• Whether Church authorisation of exorcism had any legal relevance in determining liability under German criminal law.

Arguments of the parties:

 Prosecution: Chief Prosecutor Karl Stenger argued that Michel’s deterioration was visible, extreme, and obviously life-threatening. The defendants failed to obtain medical care despite clear warning signs of starvation and severe illness. Expert testimony established that Michel’s symptoms could be fully explained by temporal-lobe epilepsy and psychosis. Exorcism was neither necessary nor medically meaningful. The defendants knew Michel was starving but continued exorcisms instead of seeking hospital care. Religious belief cannot excuse the failure to fulfil a basic duty of care. Doctors came in to testify that Michel was indeed not possessed and that her “demonic possession” was a psychological effect of her upbringing in a strict religious family, combined with her condition of epilepsy. They said that Michel was finally freed of those demons upon her death.

Defence: Defense attorney Erich Schmidt-Leichner, who represented many Germans at the infamous Nuremberg trials, represented Michel’s parents, while the priests were represented by church paid lawyers, one of whom was Marianne Thora, who represented pastor Altz. They argued that the defendants acted out of sincere religious conviction and followed Church-authorised procedures. Michel, as a legally competent adult, had refused medical care, which should have been respected. The priests lacked medical expertise and relied on ecclesiastical assessment. Michel exhibited phenomena that “exceeded psychiatric frameworks,” supporting belief in possession. It was argued that no exorcism is legal, but the German Constitution protects citizens in the unrestricted exercise of their religious beliefs.

Judgement:

 On 21 April 1978, the Lengerich Aschaffenburg found all four defendants guilty of negligent homicide under § 222 StGB, the German Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sentencing: Six months’ imprisonment for the two priests, suspended for a three-year parole, and an order to pay court costs. The parents of Michel received no punishment since the court said they had “suffered enough”. The court stressed that while the defendants acted out of sincere belief, their omissions met the statutory definition of negligent homicide. The suspended sentences reflected the court’s recognition of the defendants’ subjective good faith, but the duty of care was objectively breached.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Existence of a Legal Duty to Act (Garantenstellung):

The court held that the parents and priests each bore a positive duty to ensure Anneliese Michel received necessary medical care. This duty arose from:

1. Parental duty under German civil and criminal law: Parents are guarantors of their children’s welfare, even after the child reaches adulthood, where the child remains factually dependent due to mental or physical incapacity. Michel’s deteriorating state made her functionally incapable of autonomous decision-making.
2.  The priests assumed a position of responsibility by overseeing Michel’s daily welfare during exorcism sessions, observing her malnutrition and collapse, and undertaking a prolonged ritual instead of medical intervention. German criminal law recognises a duty based on voluntarily assumed care. Thus, both parents and priests were guarantors and liable for omissions.

• Objective Foreseeability of Death

The court found that Michel’s death was not only foreseeable but glaringly obvious. Contemporary reports describe her emaciated state, inability to walk, and total physical collapse. Crucial findings included:

1. She weighed roughly 30 kilograms at death.
2. She had ceased eating except for small amounts. She was visibly weak, incoherent, and bedridden. Witnesses testified she could “no longer move without support.”
3. Medical experts further confirmed that hospitalisation even ten days before death would have saved her life.

• Causation (Kausalität):

The court accepted expert evidence that:

Michel died of malnutrition, dehydration, and pneumonia, which were direct results of the ongoing failure to obtain medical assistance. Causation in negligent homicide requires showing the omission was a but-for cause and objectively imputable. Both conditions were satisfied. But for the defendants’ failure to seek medical intervention, Michel would have survived.

The harm was a typical consequence of refusing medical help for someone in her condition. German courts require foreseeability, not certainty, and foreseeability was overwhelming.

• Religious Belief Does Not Negate Objective Duty (Sorgfaltsmassstab):

This was the core legal principle. Judge Elmar Bohlender stated that while the defendants acted out of sincere conviction.

Key rulings:

1. Subjective faith cannot modify the objective standard of care. German law measures negligence by the objective standard of a prudent person, not by religious conviction.
2. Church authorisation is irrelevant to criminal liability. The bishop’s approval of the exorcism did

• Michel’s Refusal of Treatment Was Legally Invalid

The defence argued that Michel had refused medical care, and as an adult, her autonomy should have been respected.

The court rejected this on two grounds:

1. Diminished mental capacity:

Michel was deemed not competent to refuse treatment due to: psychosis, extreme malnutrition, religious delusions intensified by the ritual, and neurological deterioration.

German law only recognises refusal of treatment when the patient has capacity, which Michel lacked.

1. Defendants could not rely on an invalid refusal:

Even if they believed her refusal was valid, that belief was objectively unreasonable given her condition.

Conclusion:

The State Prosecutor v. Michel, Alt & Renz case remains a landmark in German criminal law, illustrating the limits of religious autonomy when weighed against statutory duties to preserve life. The case underscores the principle that omissions can constitute homicide and highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedom with public safety. It continues to influence debates on exorcism, psychiatric care, and parental/clerical authority.

References:

•  The Office of State Prosecutor v. Anna & Josef Michel, Ernst Alt & Arnold Renz.         LG Aschaffenburg, No. Kls 4 Js 6880/76 (F.R.G.)
• Der Spiegel, https://www.spiegel.de/ ( 2nd Dec., 2025).
• FragDenStaat, https://fragdenstaat.de/ (2nd Dec., 2025).
• Skeptical Inquirer, https://skepticalinquirer.org/ (2nd Dec., 2025)
• Press-Courier, Apr. 22, 1978.
• Washington Post, Apr. 21, 1978.