Commentary on Sentence No. 3721 of 2025: Renewal of Evidence and Multiple Expert Opinions

The recent sentence No. 3721 of 2025 offers an important reflection on the theme of the renewal of evidence and the plurality of expert opinions in the criminal field. This decision by the Court of Cassation, chaired by Dr. P. Piccialli and reporting judge A. Mari, emphasizes the importance of adequate reasoning when choosing to rely on a single expert opinion among many available. This aspect is crucial to ensure a fair trial and respect the rights of the parties involved.

The Context of the Sentence

The central issue of the sentence concerns the evaluation of expert opinions ordered during the evidentiary integration phase. In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal of Rome had limited itself to considering exclusively one of the expert opinions, without providing adequate reasoning regarding the choice made. This led to the Court of Cassation's decision to annul the sentence for civil effects only, highlighting that it is necessary to present the reasons for the choice and to compare the various expert positions.

Plurality of new expert acquisitions following evidentiary renewal - Possibility of referring, in the sentence, to only one of the expert opinions - Exclusion - Consequences. The appellate sentence that, in the face of a plurality of expert opinions on the same subject ordered during the evidentiary integration phase, exclusively refers to the content of only one of them, accepting its conclusions, is flawed by a lack of reasoning, since it is necessary to present the reasons for the choice made and scrutinize the contested positions, also in light of the other procedural findings, including the party's expert opinions, with which the accepted position must be compared.

The Implications of the Sentence

This ruling has significant implications for judicial practice. In particular, it emphasizes the obligation for the judge to thoroughly justify their choices, especially when it comes to evaluating multiple expert opinions. Below are some key considerations:

  • It is essential to analyze and compare all available expert opinions to ensure a fair trial.
  • The choice of a single expert opinion must be supported by detailed and convincing reasoning.
  • The lack of reasoning can lead to the annulment of the sentence, as highlighted by the Court of Cassation.

Conclusions

Sentence No. 3721 of 2025 represents an important step towards greater attention to the reasoning behind judicial decisions. It reaffirms the principle that a fair trial requires not only the ascertainment of facts but also a critical and reasoned evaluation of the evidence presented. This approach not only protects the rights of the parties but also strengthens trust in the legal system.

Bianucci Law Firm