Report from the "Diaz School" trial against 29 policemen. Hearing held on July the 9th.

We start at 9.30 by the usual roll call and questions. This morning
attorney Biondi arrives too, one hour late. Only attorney Rossi is
here on the injured persons side, as vice-president of the Association
of Democratic Jurists.

The judge starts by reading his decision about the request attorney
Passeggi presented during the previous hearing. The lawyer had
underlined the "particular" situation of the accused persons whose defender
has a legitimate impediment [1]: in this case, the prescription date
is shifted. The judge decides to go on with the trial.

Attorneys Duilia and Malossi present the original documents regarding
two civil plaintiffs who, during the previous hearing, presented only
copies of such documents.

The Public Prosecutor asks to record the request of the decree of
appointment of attorney Porciani, due to the past problems with the
attorney family name: some of the acts was referring to "PorGiani"
instead of "Porciani". Porciani defends Ledoti. The recording request
is accepted and the trial goes on.

Porciani asks for two days more to examine the two news civil
plaintiff constitutions with his absent clients. The judge gives the
lawyer ten minutes to evaluate the two filed acts.

Mascia, who defends Mortola and Dominici, starts by speaking in
"general and generic" opposition against all the civil plaintiff
constitutions. Mascia goes on through the end by referring also to
art. 147, and demands the exclusion of all civil plaintiffs because
they miss the needed requisites described in the penal code.

Moser (civil plaintiff attorney-in-law) underlines he does not
understand the sense of the defender speech. He asks for the detailed
opposition to each of the civil plaintiffs constitution. The judge
replies to Moser that the defense counsel is free to choose its
strategy and nobody can interfere.

The whole counsel joins attorney Mascia. Romeo (civil plaintiff
attorney) recalls that Mascia can speak on the behalf of his own
clients only. Then attorney Gazzolo joins Mascia arguments. Attorney
Zunino (defending Troiani and Fabbrocini) notices some problem but he
does not explicitely mention them: he will speak only if the trial
goes on to the judgment, he asks. In the meanwhile, he also joins
Mascia, in compliance with the code. The judge asks about any other
defense intervention. All the lawyers join Mascia.

The Prosecutor leaves it to the judge to decide.

A new speech is made by attorney Porciani, concerning the Bartesaghi
(Sara's mother) case only. He recalls that, according to past
sentences by the Court of Cassation, being civil plaintiff on the behalf of
an adult (more than eighteen years old) is not allowed. No other
opposition is presented by the lawyers.

Civil plaintiff attorneys ask Mascia to deliver the memoire his
opening speech was based on, which he exhibits since the beginning of
the hearing. Somewhat ironically, attorney Mascia says it is just a
contribution to the discussion!? "We do not want to congest this
court!, since we respect the judge, the Prosecutor and even our civil
plaintiff colleagues. We should write two thousand pages for 110
constitutions!..." as he says. In a slight rumble, the whole defense
cousel declares that its silence is not a sign of quiet acceptance
toward the civil plaintiff constitutions. The judge records that the
memoire is not delivered and takes note of the request. The Prosecutor
leaves it to the judge to decide. Then the judge concedes 15 minutes
to evaluate the reasons and the documents the defense has presented.

Back in the court, the judge excludes some constitution, including
that of Guadagnucci against the accused Gava and Fabbrocini. Another
exclusion is due to mistakes in the documentation presented.

Attorney Moser (civil plaintiff) reminds that the excluded civil
plaintiff are already formally constituted, and that the defense has
just announced an opposition. Such a generic opposition should be
rejected. As regards Bartesaghi, her attorney-in-law will
speak. Attorney Torro speaks on the behalf of Bartesaghi, who rejects
the request, by underlining that she had constituted herself as a
civil plaintiff on her own and depositing a copy of sentences
following the ones quoted by the defense.

Attorney Manlio Vicino deposits the acts on the behalf of Radio Onda
D'Urto, including the record of June, 6th assembly and a copy of the
documents released by the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications.

For what concerns the remaining civil plaintiff constitutions, the
judge reserves his decision for the next hearing. The monday hearing
is canceled and we will be back in the court on Wednesday, 14th, at 9.30
am. The Prosecutor will start and the judge will release his decision.


Notes:

[1] According to the italian law, a hearing can be postponed if a
lawyer is absent because of a "legitimate impediment", that is, a
reason of sufficient relevance according to the judge.