Analysis of Judgment No. 14577 of 2022: Rescission of Judgment and Appointment of Counsel of Choice

Judgment No. 14577 of December 14, 2022, published by the Court of Cassation, offers interesting insights into the important issue of rescission of judgment, with particular reference to the methods of appointing counsel. This ruling clarifies when the appointment of counsel of choice, made after electing domicile with court-appointed counsel, translates into actual knowledge of the proceedings 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 the appeal filed by G. P. M. Casella inadmissible. The main issue concerned whether the appointment of counsel of choice during preliminary investigations, after having elected domicile with court-appointed counsel, could constitute proof of actual knowledge of the proceedings. The Court held that such an appointment is an indicator of actual knowledge, which legitimizes the trial in absentia.

Rescission of judgment - Trial in absentia - Election of domicile with court-appointed counsel during the preliminary investigation phase - Subsequent appointment of counsel of choice - Actual knowledge of the proceedings - Existence - Conditions. In matters of rescission of judgment, the appointment of counsel of choice, made after the investigated person, during the preliminary investigation phase, has elected domicile with court-appointed counsel, constitutes an indicator of actual knowledge of the proceedings, which legitimizes its trial in absentia, barring the possibility for the convicted person to allege factual circumstances that lead to the conclusion that, despite the appointment of chosen counsel, there was no knowledge of the trial's commencement and that this was not due to culpable disinterest in the procedural matter.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for the defense of defendants. In particular, it highlights that:

• The appointment of counsel of choice at a later stage than the election of domicile with court-appointed counsel can be considered a sign of knowledge of the proceedings.
• The possibility to contest a trial in absentia is reserved for those who can demonstrate that they were unaware of the trial 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 communicating procedural acts.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14577 of 2022 represents an important reference point for understanding the rescission of judgment in criminal matters. It underscores the importance of the defendant's awareness of the proceedings, highlighting that the appointment of counsel of choice is not merely a formality but a condition that can profoundly influence the course of the judicial proceedings. It is therefore crucial that defendants are always informed about their rights and the stages of the proceedings to avoid issues related to their absence during hearings.