It wasn’t a pleasant sensation and I didn’t feel better until I was back in the familiar shabbiness of the courtroom.
The guards led Paolicelli to his cage and, once he was inside, took off his handcuffs through the bars. I went up to him to say hello, and as I shook his hand I asked him, as was customary, if we were still agreed about our strategy. Yes, he said, we were agreed. Mirenghi said we could start, I returned to my place, put on my robe, and just before the opening formalities got going I thought of Natsu and her little girl and the walk in the park. And what had happened after that.
Judge Mirenghi read out the preliminary report. It didn’t take more than five minutes. Then he turned to me and the assistant prosecutor and asked if by any chance there were any requests for plea-bargaining.
Montaruli opened his hands a little and shook his head. I stood up, adjusting my robe on my shoulders.
“No, Your Honour. We have no requests for plea-bargaining. I do however have a request for new testimony to be considered.”
Mirenghi frowned. Girardi looked up from the file he was examining. Russo was looking for the best position in which to doze off and gave no indication that he had heard anything.
“Signor Paolicelli, in accordance with a questionable strategy on the part of his counsel, declined to testify during his original trial. We consider now that this was an erroneous choice. We consider that it is vital for the court to hear the defendant’s own story, both as regards the events which form the basis of the charges against him and those which took place subsequently. From the same perspective, and with the same aim, we also request that testimony be heard from Paolicelli’s wife, Signora Natsu Kawabata.”
I paused for a few moments. Mirenghi and Girardi were listening to me. Russo was slowly tilting to one side. Everything was going well, so far.
“Apart from the request to examine both the defendant and his wife, we also have another request. It is a request I do not make lightly; you will soon understand why. In the last few days my client has revealed to me certain factors pertaining to his relationship with his previous defence counsel, pertaining in particular to the substance of certain conversations with said counsel. According to Signor Paolicelli – as he will of course relate in his testimony – the previous counsel implied to him that he knew the people responsible for the illegal operation for which Paolicelli was first arrested and then sentenced. The significance of such information is obvious, and it will naturally have to be subjected to careful scrutiny as to its reliability. But just as naturally, in order for it to be evaluated, it will have to be elicited from the person directly concerned, that is, Avvocato Macri. I therefore request that Avvocato Macri be called as a witness.
“Needless to say, these requests for the admission of new testimony were not anticipated when the appeal was originally drawn up, since this was done by the previous counsel, within the framework of a radically different defence strategy. But as the court will be able to ascertain, they clearly fall within the paradigm laid down in Article 603, Paragraph 3, of the code of criminal procedure. And on the basis of the statements which the defendant will make in his examination, you will be able to verify for yourselves the absolute necessity for the admission of Avvocato Macri’s testimony, as requested.”
It was done. Only after I’d finished speaking, when Mirenghi asked the assistant prosecutor to give his response to my requests, did I become fully aware of what I had set in motion.
Quite apart from the written rules – those in the code and in the rulings interpreting that code – there are a great many unwritten rules regarding the conduct of court proceedings, and they’re much more strictly obeyed. There’s one that goes something like this: a lawyer doesn’t defend a client by hanging a colleague out to dry. It isn’t done, and that’s it. Anyone who violates this rule usually pays for it, one way or another.
Or at the very least, someone tries to make him pay.
Montaruli rose to give his response.
“Your Honour, this seems to me – at least as far as the request to call the previous counsel as a witness is concerned – a somewhat unusual hypothesis on which to base a request for the admission of new testimony. Quite apart from the question of merit, I think there are several legal obstacles to admission of testimony from the former counsel. I shall briefly list these possible legal obstacles. Firstly, if I have understood correctly, from the sketchy indications provided by Avvocato Guerrieri, there seems to be a suggestion that the previous counsel conducted his defence in order to serve interests other than his client’s. If this is the case, it would be impossible to examine said counsel as a witness since, ultimately, he would be asked to make statements that might incriminate him. Secondly, I think that there would in any case still be a conflict of interest, according to Article 197 of the code of criminal procedure. Finally, and conclusively, I consider that in any case said counsel could invoke lawyer-client confidentiality in accordance with Article 200. For all these reasons I oppose the admission of testimony from Avvocato Macri. I have no objections to the other requests regarding the examination of the defendant and his wife.”
Mirenghi whispered something in Girardi’s ear. He didn’t even turn to Russo. I got to my feet and asked permission to speak.
“Your Honour, I’d like to make a few observations on what the assistant prosecutor had just said.”
“On what in particular, Avvocato Guerrieri?”
“On the assistant prosecutor’s outline of the presumed inadmissibility of Avvocato Macri’s testimony.”
“If necessary, you can make these observations at another time. For the moment we agree to the examination of your client and of his wife. We will decide on the other request once these are over.”
Then, before I could add anything else, he dictated his ruling to the clerk of the court. “Having considered the admissibility of the examination of the defendant and of his wife, and having considered that it is not possible at the present time to come to a decision as to the admissibility of testimony from Avvocato Macri, it being necessary to hear said examination in order to evaluate its bearing on this case, the court admits the examination of the defendant and of his wife, and reserves any possible further decision until it has been completed.”
All things considered, it was the right thing to do. I would probably have done the same in their place.
Mirenghi again addressed me. “Avvocato Guerrieri, how long do you think the examination of your client will take? If it is something we can get through in a few minutes, we’ll proceed now. If not, as we have to close today’s session early due to a personal engagement of my own, it would be better to adjourn.”
“Your Honour, I don’t think it will take long, but I doubt that a few minutes would be enough. It may be better to have a short adjournment.”
Mirenghi made no comment on this. He put it on record that the next hearing would take place in a week’s time, and then said that there would now be a recess of five minutes.
I was on my way to tell Paolicelli that things were going more or less as I’d expected, when I saw his eyes moving towards the door of the courtroom. I turned and saw Natsu coming in.
I found myself blushing, in a way I hadn’t since I was a child. This was the first time, since this whole business had started, that we were all together in the same place. Natsu, her husband and I.
Paolicelli called me. I hesitated for a few moments, hoping the blushing would disappear or at least fade a little, and then walked to the cage.
He wanted to say hello to his wife and needed his guards to let her come closer. I asked Montaruli, and he authorized the defendant and his wife to have a brief conversation. As a rule this isn’t done – only a limited number of such conversations are allowed and they can only take place in prison – but in practice prosecutors who aren’t complete bastards bend the rules a little during the pauses between cases.