Valerio Aiuti
Degree in Law magna cum laude; Ph. D in Criminal Procedure Law, University of Rome "Tor Vergata".
Researcher in Criminal Procedure Law, "Sapienza" University of Rome.
Admitted to the italian bar.
Supervisors: Prof. Pasquale Bronzo, "Sapienza" University of Rome
Researcher in Criminal Procedure Law, "Sapienza" University of Rome.
Admitted to the italian bar.
Supervisors: Prof. Pasquale Bronzo, "Sapienza" University of Rome
less
Related Authors
![HISTORY, LAW & LEGAL HISTORY [HLLH]](https://0.academia-photos.com/241453701/96331854/85363891/s200_hllh.history_law_legal_history.jpeg)
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Valerio Aiuti
The essay analyzes one of Franco Cordero's most characteristic theses regarding the evaluation of declarative evidence: the so-called "act of faith" thesis. According to this thesis, the judge should evaluate declarative evidence using logical tools (primarily inductive reasoning) but may find themselves in situations of indecision where they have no choice but to be convinced of a witness's sincerity or insincerity based on a feeling of sympathy or repulsion (par. 1). The thesis is first framed within the dogmatics of evidentiary procedure followed by Franco Cordero, then its nature as a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, thesis in rational evidence evaluation is explored (par. 2), and finally, its theoretical origins and systematic consequences are illustrated, taking into consideration the rules for the formation and documentation of evidence, as well as decision-making and quæstio facti reasoning (par. 3-4).
The paper examines a recent ruling in which the Supreme Court quashed the decision of an appellate judge who, after reconsidering the testimony provided during the trial by technical consultants and the bankruptcy trustee, convicted for bankruptcy a defendant who had been acquitted at the first instance without renewing the hearing. The decision is framed within its theorical context, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. In the § 5, the case presented to the Court is finally revised from an alternative theorical perspective to explore a different solution.
The essay refers to a complex legal case, known in the media as the “Cottarelli Massacre”, to analyze the arguments that supported the reversal of an initial acquittal into a conviction on appeal regarding the evaluation of the main evidence available, namely what is called “accomplice evidence”. The arguments of the two main decisions on the case are first analyzed from a predominantly descriptive point of view, and then subjected to brief criticism. Starting from § 5, the essay focuses on the doctrinal and theoretical characteristics of the so-called “accomplice evidence”, trying to highlight the roots of the various models of “corroboration” that animate the reflections of the interpreters.
By taking advantage of a recent ECHR’s decision in which the Court has deemed compatible with the fair trial requirements a first conviction in second instance without the re-hearing of the witnesses, the Author critically illustrates the interpretative schemes used by Italian law scholars and jurisprudence in order to internalize the conventional case law relating to the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing on appeal. Once a corrective interpretative proposal has been identified, a critic to the decision is then made.
Books by Valerio Aiuti
The essay analyzes one of Franco Cordero's most characteristic theses regarding the evaluation of declarative evidence: the so-called "act of faith" thesis. According to this thesis, the judge should evaluate declarative evidence using logical tools (primarily inductive reasoning) but may find themselves in situations of indecision where they have no choice but to be convinced of a witness's sincerity or insincerity based on a feeling of sympathy or repulsion (par. 1). The thesis is first framed within the dogmatics of evidentiary procedure followed by Franco Cordero, then its nature as a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, thesis in rational evidence evaluation is explored (par. 2), and finally, its theoretical origins and systematic consequences are illustrated, taking into consideration the rules for the formation and documentation of evidence, as well as decision-making and quæstio facti reasoning (par. 3-4).
The paper examines a recent ruling in which the Supreme Court quashed the decision of an appellate judge who, after reconsidering the testimony provided during the trial by technical consultants and the bankruptcy trustee, convicted for bankruptcy a defendant who had been acquitted at the first instance without renewing the hearing. The decision is framed within its theorical context, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. In the § 5, the case presented to the Court is finally revised from an alternative theorical perspective to explore a different solution.
The essay refers to a complex legal case, known in the media as the “Cottarelli Massacre”, to analyze the arguments that supported the reversal of an initial acquittal into a conviction on appeal regarding the evaluation of the main evidence available, namely what is called “accomplice evidence”. The arguments of the two main decisions on the case are first analyzed from a predominantly descriptive point of view, and then subjected to brief criticism. Starting from § 5, the essay focuses on the doctrinal and theoretical characteristics of the so-called “accomplice evidence”, trying to highlight the roots of the various models of “corroboration” that animate the reflections of the interpreters.
By taking advantage of a recent ECHR’s decision in which the Court has deemed compatible with the fair trial requirements a first conviction in second instance without the re-hearing of the witnesses, the Author critically illustrates the interpretative schemes used by Italian law scholars and jurisprudence in order to internalize the conventional case law relating to the right of the accused to a fair and public hearing on appeal. Once a corrective interpretative proposal has been identified, a critic to the decision is then made.