The Criminal Chamber of Reggio Emilia takes the field in defense of the lawyers of the “Angels and Demons” trial, with a note that stigmatizes the behavior of the prosecutor towards the defenders of the trial. The subject of the press release is recent disputes between the lawyer Luca Bauccio, defender of Nadia Bolognini, one of the accused psychotherapists, and the prosecutor Valentina Salvi, who requested the transmission of the documents due to some considerations made by the lawyer in the courtroom. The medical certificate filed by the prosecutor, with which she announced the legitimate impediment of the witness Rita Rossi, the psychologist who certified a borderline disorder in the patient of Claudio Foti (definitively acquitted), a diagnosis destroyed by the judges, warmed things up. appeal, who defined it as effectively lacking scientific coverage. The lawyers Nicola Canestrini – defender of the social worker Francesco Monopoli – and Bauccio had asked the Court to order a tax examination, since the medical certificate lacked a diagnosis, thus preventing the Court from assessing the actual impediment. Hence Bauccio’s comment on the tendency to “diagnose illnesses without diagnosis”, a statement following which the prosecutor requested the transmission of the minutes of the hearing to the prosecutor’s office, so as to be able to proceed against Bauccio for having offended the witness’s reputation. Words that left the defenders petrified, especially because it was a possible crime that could only be prosecuted upon complaint, which is why the prosecutor’s words sounded like “intimidation”. Bauccio therefore in turn requested the transmission of the minutes of the hearing to the competent bodies for disciplinary profiles and to the prosecutor’s office for criminal profiles, with the hypothesis of private violence.
«In a democratic and liberal state the Lawyer is not an obstacle to justice – we read in the note from the Criminal Chamber -, and every attack on the defensive function translates into an attack on the very idea of freedom». The note highlights the excessive media coverage of the matter and “the unworthy exploitation carried out by certain political representatives” and, without going into the merits of the matter, the need to protect the right of defence. «The defender’s intervention took place during the exercise of the defense mandate, therefore in the full exercise of the right of defense in favor of his client – we read in the press release -; at the same time, agreeable or not, as long as it concerns the object of the case, the criticism (even lively, sarcastic, harsh) that the defender intends to make towards subjects involved in the trial, even those who assume the status of witness, is legitimate, if considers it useful for the exercise of defence; even if the defender’s expressions (and always provided that they relate to the facts of the case) had damaged the reputation of the witness consultant, the crime of defamation certainly cannot be considered, because pursuant to art. 598 of the Criminal Code “The offenses contained in the writings presented or in the speeches given by the parties or their advocates in proceedings before the Judicial Authority, or before the Administrative Authority, are not punishable, when the offenses concern the object of the case or of the administrative appeal ” ; any crime of defamation can actually be prosecuted upon complaint by a party and not by office, thus the prosecutor’s request for transmission of the minutes of the hearing to the prosecutor’s office is considered completely irrelevant”.
According to criminal lawyers, Salvi’s attitude would represent «an action capable of compromising, conditioning and endangering the defender’s freedom to exercise – as he sees fit – the right of defence, constitutionally guaranteed by art. 24″. An attitude «not in line with the role of a public prosecutor “body of justice”, free from arbitrarily inquisitorial intentions» and which «alters what should be the intangible balance between accusation and defense in the exercise of a fair trial». Hence the solidarity with Bauccio and the other defenders, stigmatizing “any compression of the right of defense and any improper interference in the exercise of the defensive function, which must be guaranteed and protected to safeguard the Rule of Law”. Behavior of this kind, concludes the note signed by President Luigi Scarcella, «will not prevent us from carrying out the defensive function as the law allows, they will not deflect us from exercising the defense of our clients in the best, most professional and correct way possible ; indeed, they will require us to be even better and firmer in our rights and in their exercise.”
