Direct Examination of the Corpus Delicti: Commentary on Judgment No. 14743 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 14743 of 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Milan, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the direct examination of the corpus delicti by the judge. This decision, which has generated interest among legal practitioners, establishes significant principles regarding the investigation and the adversarial principle.

Context of the Judgment

In the case under review, the judge held that the direct examination of the corpus delicti does not constitute an investigative step such as the identification of objects provided for by Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the judge may independently proceed with such examination in chambers, without the need for an adversarial proceeding with the defense.

The direct examination of the corpus delicti, not constituting an investigative step such as the identification of objects pursuant to art. 215 Code of Criminal Procedure, may be carried out independently by the judge in chambers, without adversarial proceedings with the defense. (In application of this principle, the Court found the decision to be free from defects, in which, due to direct knowledge of the item acquired in chambers, the judgment on the degree of counterfeiting of counterfeit bags, formulated in the absence of adversarial proceedings, was incorporated into the reasoning, on the grounds that the defense counsel could well have requested to view the corpus delicti or to carry out investigations on the product's characteristics).

Implications of the Established Principle

This judgment highlights how the direct examination of the corpus delicti can occur without adversarial proceedings, which raises important questions about the protection of the rights of the defense. Although the Court states that defense counsel may request to view the corpus delicti or conduct investigations, it is crucial to consider that the lack of adversarial proceedings could compromise the right to defense. The implications of this decision can be summarized in the following points:

• Judge's autonomy in the direct examination of the corpus delicti.
• Possibility of a reasoned judgment without adversarial proceedings, although the defense's request to view the item is guaranteed.
• Potential risks to the protection of the rights of the defense in the absence of adversarial proceedings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 14743 of 2024 offers food for thought on the delicate balance between the judge's autonomy and the protection of the rights of the defense. While on the one hand the necessity of a direct and rapid examination of the corpus delicti is recognized, on the other hand it is essential to ensure that the defense can fully exercise its rights. Future jurisprudence will need to ensure that this practice does not become a double-edged sword in the context of a fair trial.