What is the “giudizio abbreviato” and when is it used?
Ordinarily, an Italian criminal proceeding originates from a report of a crime and unfolds through preliminary investigations (during which the investigators—the main actors at this stage—seek evidence to verify the credibility of the report, For further information on Preliminary Investigations, CLICK HERE). The process then leads to the trial phase (where the prosecution and defense confront each other on an equal footing before a neutral and impartial judge).
The trial phase is legally mandated to ensure the maximum implementation of the right of defense in favor of the accused, who is presumed innocent until a final judgment is rendered, based on the well-known presumption of innocence. The accused may, therefore, defend themselves by presenting their own witnesses and documents and, in general, carrying out any defensive activities suitable to challenge the prosecution’s case (including cross-examining adverse witnesses).
However, in certain circumstances, opting to proceed to trial may prove highly risky from a defensive standpoint.
Consider cases where the preliminary investigations have been conducted with such meticulousness by the investigators that they have gathered solid—and nearly irrefutable—evidence regarding the commission of the crime (for example, where numerous and converging accusatory witness statements exist, along with multiple video files recorded by surveillance cameras and eyewitnesses, fully capturing the criminal act and its perpetrator).
In such cases, it may be extremely challenging to “offer” an alternative reconstruction of the events: the trial could even reveal, in greater detail, the severity of the events, as it is the “forum” designated to shed light on the specifics of each legal case.
Moreover, it may be inadvisable to “enter” the trial phase in cases where, although the defendant is innocent, the events have unfolded in such an unusual manner that it becomes extremely difficult to provide a different reconstruction that proves the alleged perpetrator’s innocence (consider the lack of defense witnesses, even due to accidental causes, such as their sudden death, or the destruction of essential documents, like in the case of a fire destroying video files that prove the accused’s innocence and the responsibility of third parties, etc.).
Another scenario where it may be inadvisable to “enter” the trial phase (and where opting for the abbreviated judgment may be more favorable) arises when the defense possesses solid and irrefutable evidence of the accused’s innocence, rendering the trial phase unnecessary (consider the case where Tizio is accused of killing Caio, which occurred in Rome on day X at time Y, while Tizio was actually overseas in New York for work on that date—as proven by numerous recorded videos during the conference, entry and exit visas to and from Italy, images captured by airport cameras in both Italy and the United States, and those of the hotel where Tizio stayed in New York, all proving the baselessness of the accusation, due to the evident impossibility of Tizio being in Rome and committing the murder).
In such (and similar) cases, the “giudizio abbreviato”, which can be requested at the defendant’s sole discretion, may be extremely advantageous, allowing them to bypass the trial phase and quickly obtain an acquittal (if solid and irrefutable evidence of innocence is immediately available) or a “lighter” conviction (if the evidence held by the prosecution is so strong that an unfavorable outcome of the trial seems inevitable), as the request for “abbreviated judgment” entitles the defendant—by law—to a one-third reduction of the final sentence (compared to what the judge deems appropriate for the crime, so, for example, a 21-year sentence would be “replaced” by a 14-year sentence).
Founding Lawyer
Jacopo Antonio Ahmad
For further information, Contact Us.
