Gianrico Carofiglio - Reasonable Doubts

I stood up to say hello.

“Good morning, Consigliere.”

“Good morning, Avvocato. How are you?”

“Very well. It’s my client who’s in a bit of trouble.”

“Which is your case?”

“Paolicelli. The drugs from Montenegro.”

The face he made spoke volumes. Yes, my client was definitely in trouble, it meant. We were going to plea-bargain, obviously. No? Now he was starting to look at me with a certain curiosity. What on earth was I planning to do with an open-and-shut case like that? After a moment’s hesitation, I told him – omitting a few details – what I was thinking of doing. I told him that Paolicelli claimed he was innocent and had been framed, and that I believed him and wanted to try to get him acquitted.

He listened to me politely, and didn’t say anything until I’d finished.

“If your client is telling the truth, then he’s really in a tough spot. And I wouldn’t like to be in his lawyer’s shoes.”

I was about to reply that I wouldn’t like to be in his lawyer’s shoes either, when the hum of the courtroom was interrupted by the sound of the bell. The judges were coming in.

The three judges entered after having the bell rung a second time. It wasn’t what you’d call a band of youngsters. The youngest – Girardi – was over sixty, and the presiding judge – Mirenghi – was just over a year away from retirement.

The third one – Russo – would normally fall asleep a few minutes after the beginning of a hearing and would wake up when it was time to go. He was quite well known for this, and didn’t rank very high in my personal league table of judges.

As far as I was concerned, these three were neither good nor bad. Basically, they liked an easy life, but there were worse appeal court judges. Better ones, too, to tell the truth, but I really couldn’t complain.

They quickly got through the cases that had to be adjourned, and a couple of cases involving plea-bargaining, including that of my colleague Castellano. Then Mirenghi asked the clerk of the court if the escort had arrived from the prison with the defendant Paolicelli. The clerk of the court said yes, they had arrived and were waiting in the holding cells.

The holding cells are located in the basement of the courthouse.

Every time I hear them mentioned, I recall the only time I’ve ever been in them. A client of mine had asked to speak to me urgently before the hearing started. The prosecutor had authorized me to go down with the escort and talk to him down there. My client was a robber who had decided to turn State’s evidence, but wanted to talk to me before he took the plunge.

I remember an abstract, secret world. There was a corridor with a defective neon light that went on and off intermittently. On either side, cells that looked like cages for battery animals. Nightmarish ravines from which a clawed hand might suddenly emerge and grab hold of me. A smell of damp, mildew and oil. Muffled, menacing noises. Filthy, peeling walls. A feeling that the normal rules didn’t apply down here. That there were other rules, unknown and disturbing.

It struck me that we were only a few yards from the so-called normal world, and I wondered how many other terrifying secret worlds like this one I had come close to in my life.

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.”