Lucrezia Ciotti The Court of Cassation has ruled to overturn the acquittal of Franco Mottola, former commander of the Arce Carabinieri station, and his family members, Marco and Annamaria, all charged with the murder of Serena Mollicone . This decision paves the way for a new appeal trial, after the judges deemed the reasons that led to the first-instance acquittal insufficient and unclear.
The case, one of the most controversial and followed in recent years, thus returns to the center of judicial and media attention.
Rome Court of Assizes of Appeal acquits the Mottolas
In the appeal trial, Franco Mottola, former commander of the Carabinieri station in Arce, along with his wife Anna Maria and son Marco, were acquitted of charges of complicity in the murder of Serena Mollicone.
The Rome Court of Assizes of Appeals justified the acquittal by acknowledging serious gaps and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution, which was deemed insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judges emphasized the lack of clear evidence and the presence of conflicting reconstructions of the facts, which had raised significant doubts about the defendants' guilt.
This acquittal had confirmed the lack of sufficient certainty to justify a conviction against the Mottolas. Now, however, with the Supreme Court's decision, everything must be redone.
Serena Mollicone, Appeal to be redone: decision of the Supreme Court and reasons
The Court of Cassation described the acquittal on appeal for the murder of Serena Mollicone as characterized by " reasoning so contradictory as to be incomprehensible ." This is what emerged from the reasons that led to the annulment of the decision and the reopening of the trial against Franco Mottola, former commander of the Carabinieri station in Arce, his wife Anna Maria, and his son Marco, all charged with complicity in the murder of the young student.
The Supreme Court noted that the second-instance judges had accepted without adequate criticism the conclusions of the Court of Assizes of Cassino, which had already highlighted some inconsistencies in the reconstruction of the facts.
"Despite recalling this passage from the first-instance ruling, it does not at all confirm the existence of conflicting evidence with respect to the aforementioned reconstruction, stating, indeed, in several places that the latter was entirely plausible; nevertheless, it incomprehensibly declares the evidence insufficient , without explaining whether a more convincing alternative reconstruction is possible ," the reasons read.
The Court of Cassation observed that, although the judge can issue a conviction only when the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt , he is also required to carefully examine any uncertainties that have emerged , to verify whether they can be reconciled within a coherent framework.
"Only if, following this verification, doubts remain, regarding the possibility of an alternative explanation of the facts, does the Court of Cassation have a duty to acquit the accused," the Court of Cassation added.
The judges, therefore, considered the acquittal decision devoid of logical coherence. With the annulment and referral, the Court of Cassation entrusted a new Appeal trial with the task of re-examining with greater rigor the responsibilities for the death of Serena Mollicone.