Gianrico Carofiglio - Reasonable Doubts

“If I understood correctly, you told us that you haven’t always practised in Rome, right?” I realized I was saying “right?” at the end of every question, as he had done a while earlier, when we were talking in the corridors.

“I know perfectly well where you’re going with this.”

“I’m pleased to hear it. If that’s the case, perhaps I can spare myself the bother of actually asking you any questions. Would you tell us where you practised before you moved to Rome, and why, and under what circumstances, you moved?”

“I practised in Reggio Calabria, and moved for very personal reasons, sentimental reasons, if you know what I mean.”

“I see. But did anything happen to-”

He interrupted me, speaking quickly. “There were charges against me and I was acquitted, for the simple reason that I was innocent. But that has nothing to do with my move to Rome.”

At this point I glimpsed Porcelli out of the corner of my eye. He seemed to have come to life a little and was showing a naive interest in what was happening.

“Was your personal freedom restricted in any way?”

“Yes.”

“Were you under house arrest, did you spend time in prison, or what?”

“I was arrested and then, as I said – but I’m sure you already know this-I was cleared of all the charges. Because, I repeat, I was innocent.”

“Can you tell us what you were charged with?”

“I was charged with criminal conspiracy in connection with Mafia drug trafficking. The charge was completely without foundation, and I received compensation from the State for unlawful detention. Just to bring your information up to date.”

I was about to ask him on what basis he had been arrested and then cleared. But I knew Mirenghi wouldn’t let me go that far and even if I did I might jeopardize everything. It was time to get to the point.

“Did you ever tell Signor Paolicelli that you knew he was innocent?”

“I may have done. We say a lot of things to our clients, especially the ones who complain the most, who can’t stand prison. Signor Paolicelli was like that. Always complaining, I remember.”

“Could you tell us what you and Signor Paolicelli talked about? First of all, how many times did you meet?”

“I don’t remember how many times we met, five, six, seven. But I will tell you now, out of respect for the dignity of our profession, that I have no intention of talking about the conversations I had with my client, however significant they may be. With regard to these questions, I reserve the right to remain silent, on the grounds of lawyer-client confidentiality.”

Mirenghi turned to me, and gave me a questioning look.

“Your Honour, I believe that the rule of lawyer-client confidentiality is there to guarantee that the lawyer can exercise his profession freely, but more specifically to protect the client. It is not a personal privilege for individual lawyers. I’ll try to explain. The law allows defenders the right to remain silent as to what they have learned in a professional context, yes, but there is a specific reason for that. It is to guarantee the client as much freedom as possible to confide in his own defence counsel, without fear that the latter might subsequently be obliged to disclose the substance of these conversations. That, in a nutshell, is the reason for this right. It’s a way of protecting the client and the confidentiality of his relationship with his counsel, and not an indiscriminate privilege for lawyers.”

All three judges were listening to me. Russo was looking at me, and his face seemed – how shall I put this? – different.

“If this outline is correct, as I believe it is, then the right to remain silent on the grounds of lawyer-client confidentiality becomes invalid if the client, whose protection this rule is intended for, declares that he releases his counsel – or his former counsel-from the obligation to observe confidentiality. In this instance, Signor Paolicelli – as you will be able to confirm immediately – releases Avvocato Macri from this obligation. Once you have established that such is the case, I ask you to declare the right to remain silent unfounded and I ask you to order the witness to answer my questions.”

“Your Honour,” Macri said, “I’d like to make some observations on what Avvocato Guerrieri has said.”

“Avvocato Macri, you are here as a witness and are not entitled to make observations on anything the parties have said. Signor Paolicelli, do you confirm that you release your former counsel from the right to remain silent regarding the conversations which took place between you and which had as their subject the facts of this case?”

Paolicelli confirmed this. Mirenghi told Macri to go back into the witness room. Then the three judges rose and retired to their chamber.

I stood up, too, and as I did so I turned and noticed that both Tancredi and Natsu were in the courtroom, sitting a few seats from each other.

Natsu stood up. I went up to her and shook her hand. It was a bit of a show. I could feel the eyes of the world on me, Paolicelli’s in particular. I held her hand for a very brief moment, but avoided looking in her eyes.

Then I asked her to excuse me because I had to talk to someone. As I walked towards Tancredi I noticed that the man who knew the score had vanished. Which made me feel both relieved and anxious in a new kind of way.

“What are you doing here?” I asked.

“I had to go to the Prosecutor’s Department. But then I got through my business quicker than I’d expected, so, seeing as how you’ve involved me in this case anyway, I came to see what was happening. What do you think the judges will do? Will they order him to answer?”

“I don’t know. And I don’t know which is better for us, to tell the truth.”

“What do you mean?”

“If the judges order him to answer and he lies without contradicting himself too much, then it’s Paolicelli’s word against his.”

“And what if they say he can claim lawyer-client confidentiality?”

“I can make something of that in my closing argument. You saw, Your Honours, that the witness Macri refused to tell us about his conversations with his former client. He claimed lawyer-client confidentiality. Of course he was entitled to do so, in accordance with your order. But we have to ask: why? Why, when his client himself wanted him to talk about the substance of those conversations, did he refuse to do so? Obviously because there was information it wasn’t in his interest to reveal.”

Having got the technical explanation out of the way, I thought it might be a good idea to tell him about the henchman Macri had brought with him. “In any case, Signor Macri didn’t come on his own.”

Tancredi turned his head slightly, to inspect the courtroom. Macri’s friend had gone, however, so I told him what had happened before the hearing.

“I’m going to call some of my people now. When Macri’s finished on the witness stand we’ll put a tail on your pleasant colleague and his friend. If they leave by car we’ll have them stopped on the autostrada by the transport police. It’ll look like a random check; that way they won’t suspect anything. If they take a plane, we’ll alert our colleagues in the border police. We’ll be able to identify them and see if this man is only a driver and flunkey or something worse.”

That made me feel a whole lot better, I thought.

“That way,” Tancredi went on, “if anyone does bump you off, you can rest assured it won’t go unpunished. Those two will be the first people we arrest.”

I don’t know why, but I didn’t find the joke all that funny. I was looking for an effective retort when the bell rang and the judges came back into the courtroom.