Talk:Italian Code of Criminal Procedure

Examining magistrate
In the Kercher investigation, the 'investigating judge' [Claudia Matteini] was a different person to the Pubblico Ministero [Guiliano Mignini] (who was the prosecutor in the trial). Was that just because he took over from a colleague at the same level, or was the case escalated to him because he is the chief PM for Perugia?

Signora Matteini assessed the prelimary evidence and decided that there was a case to answer and that the accused should be 'arrested provisionally' (what we call in UK/IE 'remanded in custody'). Is the preliminary arraignment described in this article? (I don't see it).

Would it be valid to describe either as an examining magistrate? --Red King (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Claudia Matteini is a GIP (a Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, Judge for the Preliminary Investigations), she is a Judge and she does not investigate on any suspects. She intervenes, during the investigations, to authorise the prosecutor, the one who actually investigates, to do some things, such as to wiretap the suspect or to remand him in custody. There are investigations where the GIP never intervenes.


 * As far as arraignment is concerned, Italian system is extremely complex, because there is no moment when the defendant is required to enter a plea. And because, even if he pleaded guilty, he would still be presumed innocent (actually, a defendant is presumed innocent until the Court of Cassation has upheld his conviction). So, it is correct to describe Giuliano Mignini as an examining magistrate
 * And the moment when he is informed of the charges against him may vary, according to what the prosecutor does, during the investigations.
 * The charges are formalised, though, only by the GUP (Giudice per l'Udienza Preliminare, Judge for the Preliminary Hearing), after the preliminary hearing, in his decreto di rinvio al giudizio. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate article?
It appears that another article, Italian Criminal Law System, has recently been created arising from Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. The other article is mostly a copy of the material on the talk page, while this one appears to be a developed version of that material. Is there any material worth including from the second article which would make a merger worthwhile, or should it just be redirected here? Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It should just be redirected here. It is a copy of draft text at talk:MoMK by the editor who went on to create this article.  I'll change it to a redirect. --Red King (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How to cite reference [9] instead of getting a new citation number?
I changed several instances of "defendant" to "suspect." I also wanted to cite reference [9] but I get a new citation number [15] for the same wording as at citation [9]. This isn't the end of the world, but it would be better, I assume, if the citation were just back to reference [9], or is getting a new citation number best? If again citing reference [9] would be better, would someone please tell me how to do it. Thanks. Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of exactly when "suspect" becomes "defendant."
For a final bit of clarification, I would like to see a change to the end of the first paragraph under "Preliminary hearing" to point out that "this" (finally) is the point at which the "suspect" becomes the "defendant." Perhaps the change could be:

"... If, on the contrary, he deems he can make his case, he summons the individual, whose status, because of this summons, now changes from that of "suspect" ("indagato") to that of "defendant" ("imputato"), to appear before the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing (JPH).[17]" Wikifan2744 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been almost two months since I made the above recommendation. Since there has been no objection or other comment, I will now make the change I recommended. Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Guilt Standard, Judge Panels, How Many Appeals
Would it be possible to get some more basics? 1) What is the standard of guilt? Reasonable doubt?  Moral certainty?  2) How do the judge panels work? Unanimous votes required? Are the lay jurors truly independent or are they under the supervision of the professional judges? 3) Can the trial/appeal/Cassation loop go on forever?67.180.103.134 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence: One brief, or two?
Under the heading "Evidence" is the following sentence: "Before the beginning of the trial phase, the parties file a brief, detailing all evidence they want to present – the parties have to indicate by name every witness and precise what these will be asked –; both the defendant and the prosecutor can cross-examine each other's witnesses."

(1) In this sentence "precise" should be "precisely"; I will make the change.

(2) Do the parties file ONE brief together or separate briefs as in British and American law? I would assume the latter, but I'm reluctant to change the wording of the sentence, just in case that wording, which implies that they file one brief together, is correct and not an inadvertent misstatement. Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Before the beginning of the trial phase, the parties file a brief, detailing all evidence they want to present – the parties have to indicate by name every witness and precisely what these will be asked –; both the defendant and the prosecutor can cross-examine each other's witnesses. The Judge may choose not to admit any testimony that appears patently superfluous, reject irrelevant or improper or irregular questions – such as leading questions – and also ask questions to the witnesses and experts.

(3) Line break added here, as it seemed that the writer wanted to start a new paragraph with the words "The judge..." The Judge can also, but only when absolutely necessary, order additional evidence to be taken. Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)  Wikifan2744 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Flow chart of the criminal procedure
I've added a visual representation of the procedure as a flow chart. It shows the three main phases, the special proceedings and the two steps of the review of the Trial. It also represents the main four actors of the procedure. Let me know if there's any problem with the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luhp (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)