Commentary on Judgment No. 3721 of 2025: Reopening of Investigation and Plurality of Expert Opinions

The recent judgment No. 3721 of 2025 offers an important reflection on the theme of reopening investigations and the plurality of expert opinions in criminal proceedings. This decision by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. P. Piccialli and rapporteur A. Mari, emphasizes the importance of adequate reasoning when deciding to refer to only one expert opinion among many available. This aspect is crucial to ensure a fair trial and respect for the rights of the parties involved.

Context of the Judgment

The central issue of the judgment concerns the evaluation of expert opinions ordered during the supplementary investigation. In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal of Rome had limited itself to considering only one of the expert opinions, without providing adequate reasoning regarding the choice made. This led to the Court of Cassation's decision to annul the judgment for civil effects only, highlighting that it is necessary to explain the reasons for the choice made and to compare the various expert theses.

Plurality of new expert acquisitions following the reopening of the investigation - Possibility of referring, in the judgment, to only one of the expert opinions - Exclusion - Consequences. The appellate judgment is vitiated by a lack of reasoning if, in the face of a plurality of expert opinions on the same subject ordered during the supplementary investigation, it makes exclusive reference to the content of only one of them, adopting its conclusions, given that it is necessary to set out the reasons for the choice made and to scrutinize the refuted theses, also in light of the other procedural findings, including party-appointed expert reports, with which the adopted thesis must be compared.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for judicial practice. In particular, it underscores the judge's obligation to provide exhaustive reasoning for their choices, especially when evaluating multiple expert opinions. Below are some key considerations:

• It is essential to analyze and compare all available expert opinions to ensure a fair trial.
• The choice of a single expert opinion must be supported by detailed and convincing reasoning.
• A lack of reasoning can lead to the annulment of the judgment, as highlighted by the Court of Cassation.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 3721 of 2025 represents an important step towards greater attention to the reasoning behind judicial decisions. It reaffirms the principle that a fair trial requires not only the ascertainment of facts but also a critical and reasoned evaluation of the evidence presented. This approach not only protects the rights of the parties but also strengthens confidence in the legal system.