Review of a Conviction: What is Meant by "New Evidence" According to the Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 11628 of 2025)

The Italian judicial system, while aiming for legal certainty, provides for extraordinary mechanisms to correct potential judicial errors. Among these, the review of a conviction represents a fundamental safeguard to ensure substantive justice. However, access to this instrument is subject to stringent requirements, especially regarding the nature of "new evidence." On this delicate issue, the Court of Cassation recently ruled with Judgment no. 11628 of February 26, 2025, providing essential clarifications that deserve careful analysis.

Review in Criminal Procedure Law: An Extraordinary Instrument

Review is an extraordinary means of appeal governed by Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not aim to re-examine the merits of the case like an appeal, but rather to overturn a final conviction when elements emerge that suggest the conviction was unjust. The exhaustive hypotheses that allow for review include, among others, the discovery of new evidence which, alone or in conjunction with evidence already acquired, proves that the convicted person must be acquitted. It is precisely on the notion of "new evidence" that the Supreme Court's ruling focuses.

The Delicate Issue of "New Evidence": The Clarification by the Court of Cassation

The case examined by the Court concerned the defendant G. A., for whom a request for review had been declared inadmissible by the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The central issue revolved around the qualification of an element as "new evidence" under Article 630, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 11628 of 2025 (President B. U., Rapporteur C. G.), reiterated a consolidated principle, but one that is often subject to attempts at expansive interpretation by the defense.

For the purposes of reviewing a conviction pursuant to Article 630, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "new evidence" cannot consist of a different evaluation of what was argued or an unprecedented examination of what could be argued, but must consist of elements, characterized by novelty, extraneous and different from those acquired in the proceedings, so that an element already existing in the procedural records, even if not known or evaluated by the judge due to lack of presentation or lack of exercise of official powers, does not constitute "new evidence."

This passage is of crucial importance. The Supreme Court emphasizes that "new evidence" cannot be limited to a re-reading or a different interpretation of elements already present in the procedural records. It is not sufficient that an element, although existing, was not known to the judge or was not evaluated due to a failure to present it by the parties or a failure to exercise official powers. The required novelty is objective and external to the evidentiary material already examined. In other words, the evidence must be truly "new," meaning not pre-existing or not accessible with due diligence during the ordinary proceedings.

Jurisprudence has long clarified that new evidence must possess a dual characteristic:

• Objective Novelty: the evidentiary element must not have been acquired or examined in the previous judgment.
• Decisiveness: it must have the capacity, alone or in conjunction with the evidence already evaluated, to prove that the convicted person must be acquitted.

The judgment in question aligns with previous consistent rulings (such as no. 28358 of 2016 or no. 7111 of 1999), consolidating the orientation that prevents review from being transformed into a disguised "third level of judgment," where one seeks to re-discuss evaluations already made or to valorize elements overlooked due to negligence.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation no. 11628 of 2025 reiterates the importance of a rigorous interpretation of the requirements for review. This approach ensures the stability of final judgments, a cornerstone principle of any legal system, without sacrificing the possibility of correcting gross errors. For legal professionals, this means that defense activities must be particularly careful and complete during the ordinary stages of the proceedings, as review cannot be used to remedy previous deficiencies or omissions.

In summary, "new evidence" for review must be an element that breaks into the evidentiary framework with its own autonomy and originality, not a mere re-examination of what was already available. Only in this way does review maintain its character as an exceptional instrument, aimed at protecting truth and justice in cases of proven judicial error, without compromising legal certainty.