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

The recent sentence 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 process.

The Context of the Sentence

In the case under examination, the judge held that the direct examination of the corpus delicti does not constitute an investigative burden like the recognition of things provided for by Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the judge can independently proceed with such examination in a chamber meeting, without the need for an adversarial process with the defense.

The direct examination of the corpus delicti, not constituting an investigative burden like the recognition of things under Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be conducted independently by the judge in a chamber meeting, without adversarial process with the defense. (In application of this principle, the Court deemed the decision free from defects in which, due to the direct knowledge of the item acquired in the chamber meeting, the judgment on the degree of falsification of counterfeit bags was included in the reasoning, formulated in the absence of an adversarial process, on the basis that the defense could well request to see the corpus delicti or to conduct investigations on the characteristics of the product).

The Implications of the Established Principle

This sentence highlights how the direct examination of the corpus delicti can occur without adversarial process, raising important questions regarding the protection of the rights of the defense. Although the Court asserts that the defense can request to view the corpus delicti or conduct investigations, it is crucial to consider that the lack of adversarial process could undermine the right to defense. The implications of such a 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 process, although the request to view the item by the defense is guaranteed.
  • Potential risks for the protection of the rights of the defense in the absence of adversarial process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, sentence No. 14743 of 2024 provides insights into the delicacy of balancing the autonomy of the judge and the protection of the rights of the defense. On one hand, there is recognition of the necessity for a direct and swift examination of the corpus delicti; on the other hand, it is essential to ensure that the defense can fully exercise its rights. Future jurisprudence will need to monitor that this practice does not become a double-edged sword in the context of a fair trial.

Bianucci Law Firm