Judgment No. 28050 of 2024: Clarity in the Request for Interrogation during Preliminary Investigations

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 28050 of June 14, 2024, offers an important reflection on the manner of presenting the request for interrogation by the accused, highlighting the necessity for clarity and recognizability. This legal aspect fits within the context of preliminary investigations, where every action must respect the principles of loyalty and procedural fairness.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

According to the judgment, the request for interrogation does not necessarily have to follow sacramental formulas, but must be formulated in a clear and easily recognizable manner. This principle is based on the duty of loyalty that rests on the defender and the necessity to avoid abuses of the process. The Court specifically excluded the suitability of a request expressed incidentally, such as in a situation where the phrase "requesting the interrogation" was inserted in a broader context aimed at requesting changes to the charge.

Notice of conclusion of investigations - Request for interrogation - Presentation methods - Sacramental formulas - Necessity - Exclusion - Clarity and easy recognizability of the request - Necessity - Reasons - Case. The request for interrogation formulated by the accused recipient of the notice of conclusion of the preliminary investigations does not require sacramental formulas, but, in compliance with the duty of loyalty that weighs on the defender and the necessity to avoid conduct that may abuse the process, must be clear and easily recognizable, even if contained in the body of a memorandum. (Case in which the Court excluded the suitability of the request for interrogation expressed, in the defense writing, with the phrase "requesting the interrogation" inserted incidentally in a broader sentence aimed solely at soliciting a request for dismissal or a modification of the charge).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant repercussions for lawyers and the accused. Here are some key points:

  • Clarity in communication: Lawyers must formulate requests for interrogation explicitly, avoiding ambiguous or incidental phrases.
  • Respect for the principle of loyalty: Correctness in the legal approach is essential to ensure a fair trial.
  • Prevention of abuses: The Court emphasizes that clarity is necessary to prevent possible abuses of the process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28050 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the modes of interaction during preliminary investigations. The clarity and recognizability of the request for interrogation not only protect the rights of the accused but also ensure the correctness of the criminal proceedings. It is essential that all legal practitioners adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Bianucci Law Firm