Analysis of Judgment No. 14577 of 2022: The Rescission of the Judgment and the Appointment of a Trusted Defender
The judgment no. 14577 of December 14, 2022, published by the Court of Cassation, offers interesting insights on the important topic of the rescission of the judgment, particularly regarding the methods of appointing a defender. This ruling clarifies when the appointment of a trusted defender, made after the election of domicile with the office defender, translates into an actual knowledge of the process by the defendant, thereby legitimizing the trial in absentia.
The Legal Context of the Judgment
In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal of Turin had declared inadmissible the appeal filed by G. P. M. Casella. The main issue concerned whether the appointment of a trusted defender during the preliminary investigations, after having elected domicile with an office defender, could constitute evidence of actual knowledge of the process. The Court established that such an appointment is an indication of actual knowledge, which legitimizes the conduct of the trial in the absence of the defendant.
Rescission of the judgment - Trial in absentia - Election of domicile with the office defender made during the preliminary investigation phase - Subsequent appointment of a trusted defender - Actual knowledge of the process - Existence - Conditions. Regarding the rescission of the judgment, the appointment of a trusted defender, made after the suspect has elected domicile with the office defender during the preliminary investigation phase, constitutes an indication of actual knowledge of the process, which legitimizes its conduct in absentia, without prejudice to the possibility for the convicted party to allege factual circumstances that suggest that, despite the appointment of a trusted defender, there was no knowledge of the trial proceedings and that this was not due to culpable disinterest in the case.
The Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has significant implications for the defense of defendants. In particular, it is highlighted that:
- The appointment of a trusted defender at a later time than the election of domicile with an office defender can be considered a signal of knowledge of the process.
- The possibility of contesting the conduct of the trial in absentia is reserved for those who can demonstrate that they were unaware of the proceedings for reasons not attributable to culpable disinterest.
- The Court referred to relevant provisions, such as Article 161 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the methods of communication of procedural acts.
Conclusions
Judgment no. 14577 of 2022 represents an important reference point for understanding the rescission of the judgment in the criminal context. It underscores the importance of the defendant's awareness regarding the process, highlighting that the appointment of a trusted defender is not merely a formality, but a condition that can profoundly influence the course of the judicial proceedings. It is therefore essential that defendants are always informed about their rights and the stages of the process, to avoid issues related to their absence during hearings.
