Taking into account "the advanced but not completed state of the investigation", ie the hearing, "the evidence requirements do not exist" to apply Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides, given certain conditions, the obligation to " declaration "of immediate acquittal, even before the end of the trial.
With these reasons, the judges of the Ruby ter case (Tremolada-Gallina-Pucci) rejected the requests of the "former olgettine", who asked to be acquitted immediately of the accusations of perjury. The trial goes on for all and for the two alleged crimes , including corruption in judicial acts.
In the last hearing the lawyers of the young women, former guests at the Arcore evenings and who had brought the version of the "elegant dinners" into the trials, had joined the petition presented on November 15 by the lawyer Paolo Siniscalchi, lawyer of Faggioli.
On November 3, the judges upheld an objection from Berlusconi's defense which, hypothetically, could have negative effects for the prosecution on part of the charges (perjury and corruption in judicial documents) in the Ruby ter trial, wiping out almost all the depositions of the young women heard as texts in the two trials, except those of Iris Berardi and for a part also those of Barbara Guerra.
At least "since spring 2012", according to the judges, the prosecutor "had evidence of the donations of Berlusconi (accused only for corruption in judicial acts, ed) in favor of the girls" indicated as witnesses, while they were in practice already "under investigation "and therefore they had to be registered and heard with the guarantees provided, with the right not to answer and assisted by lawyers.
In particular, the charges of perjury could fall, which among other things go towards the limitation period.
After the order came the request of the Faggioli defense, to which the other defenders joined. Today the decision of the college.
The prosecutor Luca Gaglio and the adjunct Tiziana Siciliano had asked that the applications be rejected, as happened, considering "crazy" an acquittal decision, before the end of the trial, on false testimony, because those crimes are "closely connected" with the 'accusation of corruption in judicial acts. And with an acquittal, according to the prosecutors, the college could become incompatible and would have had to "write off", that is, separate the two offenses, and share with other judges.
