Inadmissibility of Hetero-accusatory Statements: Analysis of Judgment No. 28060 of 2024

The judgment No. 28060 of May 16, 2024, filed on July 12, 2024, represents an important ruling regarding the inadmissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. In particular, it addresses the issue of statements made to the judicial police by a suspect in the absence of a defense attorney and without the necessary notifications. This decision is of fundamental importance for understanding how the right to defense can be protected and what the consequences of procedural violations are.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation has declared that hetero-accusatory statements made by a suspect in a connected proceeding cannot be used as evidence if the guarantees provided by law are lacking, such as the presence of a defense attorney and the required notifications. Nevertheless, the Court specified that the inadmissibility of such statements does not automatically extend to the subsequent interrogation that refers to the initial statements. This aspect is based on the principle that, although there has been a violation, the subsequent act may not be affected by the same invalidity.

INADMISSIBILITY - Hetero-accusatory statements made to the judicial police by a suspect in a connected proceeding – Absence of defense attorney and lack of required notifications – Inadmissibility - Existence - Propagation to the subsequent formal interrogation recalling the initial statements - Exclusion – Reasons. In terms of evidence, the inadmissibility of statements made to the judicial police by a suspect in a connected proceeding, without the required notifications and in the absence of a defense attorney, does not extend to the subsequent formal interrogation of the aforementioned, conducted by referencing the initial statements, as the principle of transmissibility of the defect to subsequent acts, dependent on the declared nullity, does not operate in this area.

The Legal Implications

This ruling fits into a broader debate regarding the protection of the rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the suspect has the right to be assisted by a defense attorney. The lack of such assistance may lead to the invalidity of the statements made, but the Court clarified that such invalidity does not automatically propagate to subsequent acts when these have been carried out in a different context and with the necessary guarantees.

  • Recognition of the right to defense
  • Limits to the inadmissibility of evidence
  • Distinction between null and valid acts

Conclusions

Judgment No. 28060 of 2024 represents an important step in ensuring a fair balance between the protection of the rights of the suspect and the effectiveness of criminal action. It emphasizes how the lack of legal assistance and procedural defects can compromise the validity of evidence, but also clarifies that not all violations automatically lead to the inadmissibility of subsequent acts. This distinction is crucial for the proper functioning of the legal system and for safeguarding fundamental rights.

Bianucci Law Firm