Abbreviated Trial and Witness Testimony: Comment on Judgment No. 25136 of 2023

The judgment no. 25136 of March 7, 2023, of the Supreme Court of Cassation raised important questions regarding the abbreviated trial and the taking of witness evidence. In particular, the Court established that the failure to summon a witness does not automatically lead to the forfeiture of the right to hear such evidence, but imposes on the judge a duty to verify the relevance of the testimony for the ascertainment of the contested facts.

The Context of the Judgment

The case in question involved an abbreviated trial in which the summoning of a witness had been omitted. The Court of Appeal of L'Aquila declared the forfeiture of the taking of witness evidence, considering that the failure to summon automatically resulted in the impossibility of hearing the witness. However, the Court of Cassation annulled this decision, emphasizing the importance of a more in-depth analysis.

Abbreviated trial conditioned on the taking of a witness testimony - Omission of the witness summons - Forfeiture of evidence - Exclusion - Burden of verifying its relevance by the judge - Existence. In the context of an abbreviated trial conditioned on the taking of a witness testimony, the failure to summon the witness does not cause the automatic forfeiture of the party's right to its hearing, but generates a duty for the judge to verify its relevance for the ongoing ascertainment, to be carried out based on the evaluation already made at the time of the admission of the procedure.

Analysis of the Decision

The Court clarified that, in the presence of an abbreviated trial, the omission of the summoning of a witness should not automatically lead to a forfeiture of the evidence. This approach aligns with the principle of a fair trial, provided for by Article 111 of the Italian Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to defense and the fairness of the proceedings. The verification of the relevance of the evidence is the responsibility of the judge, who must consider not only the form but also the content and importance of the testimony in the context of the trial.

  • Importance of the relevance of evidence for the ascertainment of facts.
  • Active role of the judge in assessing witness testimonies.
  • Protection of the rights of the parties in the criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 25136 of 2023 represents a significant step in the protection of the rights of the parties in criminal proceedings. The decision of the Court of Cassation not to automatically consider the failure to summon a witness as forfeiture offers greater protection to the right to defense and reflects a fairer and juster approach to evaluating evidence. This judgment invites legal professionals to pay attention not only to the form of summons but also to the content and relevance of the evidence, emphasizing the importance of a justice that does not limit itself to formal issues but focuses on the substance of the rights involved.

Bianucci Law Firm