Rape trial, Sardinian lawyers stand in solidarity with Cuccureddu: «The questions to the girl serve to ascertain the truth»
The Orders after the social insults to the lawyer who defends one of the accused in Tempio: «It is unworthy that an ongoing proceeding becomes a rite of affliction for the accused and of comfort for the alleged victims»«According to constitutional and European due process, cross-examination before the judge, criticism and refutation - even harsh - of the prosecution's sources of evidence, represent the best method of ascertaining the truth . The judge - and only the judge - is responsible for governing these procedures at the hearing, admitting the relevant questions and not admitting those that are irrelevant, superfluous or do not respect freedom".
It is a passage from the note released by the Presidents of the Bar Associations of Sardinia , to effectively express solidarity with Antonella Cuccureddu , lawyer who defends Francesco Corsiglia , accused in Tempio Pausania, together with Ciro Grillo and two other young people, for an alleged sexual assault of group against a girl, which allegedly occurred in Porto Cervo in the summer of 2019.
A stance following the controversy over how the cross-examination of the young woman was conducted by Cuccureddu, with crude and explicit passages , which - leaked - attracted criticism, insults and even threats on social networks to the lawyer, so much so that she lawyer announced a complaint with attachments with hundreds of posts with intimidating and defamatory content addressed to her.
In the midst of the case, here is the statement issued by the Presidents of the Bar Associations of Sardinia , namely Lorenzo Soro (President COA Nuoro), Gabriele Satta (President COA Sassari), Enrico Meloni (President COA Oristano), Matteo Pinna (President COA Cagliari), Vito Cofano (President of COA Lanusei), Carlo Selis (President of COA Tempio Pausania).
«Without wanting to in any way go into the merits of the procedural matter - explain the Presidents - also for the
respect due to the ongoing judicial investigation and the roles of all the subjects involved in it, we express strong concern for the idea of the defensive function now dominant in the public and media representation of trials for crimes of this type".
«Where necessary - underlines the note - the trial for particularly serious crimes takes place behind closed doors, sacrificing publicity (and with it the freedom of journalistic representation of the judicial story), precisely to guarantee as a priority the maximum protection of the people involved and the serenity of the assessment". But, it is highlighted, «in increasingly frequent cases, the trial for sexual crimes is conceived, instead of as the place of ascertainment of the facts according to this model of civilization, on the one hand as a place of mere ratification of the accusations, on the other another way as an opportunity for comfort and one-way solidarity for the alleged victims ; any critical or dubious approach to the accusatory hypothesis, even if admitted by the judge who allowed the questions, is interpreted and publicly criticized - unfortunately, even by lawyers, who should have the principles mentioned above very clear - as an unacceptable lack of respect for the alleged victim, and any approach that aims to highlight and bring out gaps, contradictions and illogicality of the accusation is considered, for this reason alone, as a reprehensible form of secondary victimisation".
«This – conclude the Presidents – is not worthy of a civilized country, in which the criminal trial remains, first of all, the place of protection of an accused, presumed innocent, from the risk of judicial errors, and not the place in which to celebrate a ritual of affliction to the accused and of comfort to the alleged victims ."
«The accused and their defenders - in fact - must have the right, recognized by the Constitution and the law and regulated at the hearing by the judge, to conduct the cross-examination in the way they deem most useful for the defence ; the alleged victims must have the right to be protected and safeguarded in the places and in the ways intended for this purpose, without transforming the criminal trial into an improper instrument of protection and fight against the phenomena".
«What is at stake - the conclusion - is a model of civilization whose affirmation protects the rights of everyone, because anyone can happen to be hit by an accusation whose truth only the trial can establish».