Plea Bargaining and Prosecutor's Dissent: What Changes After Cass. 14844/2025

Judgment no. 14844/2025 of the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone in the development of jurisprudence on plea bargaining. The verdict, which annulled with referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria, answers a crucial practical question: can the defendant renew the plea bargain proposal if, during the preliminary investigation phase, the Public Prosecutor had expressed dissent or the judge had rejected it?

The Reference Regulatory Framework

The institution of plea bargaining is governed by art. 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), while art. 448, paragraph 1, of the c.p.p. allows the request to be re-proposed "until the declaration of opening of the trial". However, practice and some divergent rulings (Cass. 21877/2023, 28641/2009, 42775/2014) had created uncertainty regarding the possibility of reiterating the exact same proposal after the prosecutor's denial. Today's decision definitively resolves the issue, valuing the case-clearing rationale of the special procedure.

In the matter of plea bargaining, the request submitted to the judge for preliminary investigations, in the event that it has not received the consent of the public prosecutor or has been rejected by the judge, may be renewed, pursuant to art. 448, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even on the same terms.

Comment: the Court reiterates that the defendant's right to benefit from an alternative procedure cannot be sacrificed by an initial denial, provided that the renewal occurs before the trial. This protects the efficiency of criminal proceedings and the principle of proportionality of the penalty, favoring the reduction of the judicial workload.

Reasons of the Supreme Court

• Centrality of the defendant's informed consent: the choice to plea bargain is an expression of the right to defense, which cannot be irreversibly prejudiced by a single procedural act.
• Case-clearing effect: reiteration avoids the possibility that a change in the prosecutor's stance or a reassessment of the penalty by the judge results in a useless trial.
• Compliance with ECHR principles: the Court recalls the need for a fair trial and a reasonable duration under art. 6 ECHR, which the special procedure satisfies.

Practical Implications for Defense

Thanks to this ruling, the lawyer will be able to:

• resubmit the same agreed-upon penalty proposal, without having to modify it;
• assess whether to await any favorable investigative developments before renewing the request;
• invoke judgment 14844/2025 to counter inadmissibility exceptions raised by the prosecutor or the trial judge.

Conclusions

With decision 14844/2025, the Court of Cassation aligns with a protective and functional interpretation of plea bargaining: the defendant can try again to conclude the proceedings with an agreement, up to the opening of the trial, even if the prosecutor said "no" the first time. This is a valuable confirmation for legal practice, strengthening the flexibility of the procedure and reducing the risk of lengthy and costly trials for the treasury and for the defendants.