The evidence standoff hits the April 30 deadline
Vatican prosecutors on Thursday missed an appeals court deadline for turning over evidence to the defense in the Vatican’s major financial trial, raising the prospect of another courtroom clash over whether defendants will be allowed to review the full record. In a letter delivered as the April 30 deadline passed, prosecutors indicated they would allow appeals judges to consult the material but did not deposit documentation with the defense as the appeals court had ordered.
The dispute is rooted in the long-running case over a 350-million-euro Vatican Secretariat of State investment in a London property. After a two-year trial, a cardinal and eight other people were convicted in December 2023, but prosecutors’ broader theory of a grand scheme to defraud the Holy See was thrown out by the appeals court, which ordered additional steps to address earlier evidence access issues.
Prosecutors: judges can consult, but defense will not get everything
Defense access became central to the retrial after the appeals court’s March 17 ruling. The appeals court ordered the prosecutors to deposit in the chancery “all the acts and documents of the investigation in their integral version” by April 30. In Thursday’s response, prosecutors said they would not deposit the documentation for the defense, while telling the judges they could consult the material.
Prosecutors described the withheld documentation as “irrelevant” to the trial and said it could “pose a grave danger” to the Vatican’s public interest if provided to defense lawyers. Prosecutors also said the material remained in their offices and was available for consultation to the appeals judges via USB drive.
It was not immediately clear how the appeals court would respond to the prosecutors’ refusal, but the next scheduled hearing in the retrial is set for June 22.
Defense lawyers argue the record is still incomplete
The case has repeatedly turned on whether prosecutors have given the defense full access to investigation materials, including items that the defense says are necessary to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. Defense lawyers have argued from the start of the trial that their clients could not get a fair trial when parts of evidence were redacted or withheld entirely.
Money manager Enrico Crasso’s defense attorney, Luigi Panella, said the situation was incompatible with a fair trial. In a telephone interview, Panella asked, “In what country in the world can it be that the acts (of an investigation) are shown to the judge but not to the defense?” He added, “What concept of ‘fair trial’ can this type of statement represent?”
Other defense lawyers also responded to the April 30 letter. Attorneys Cataldo Intrieri and Massimo Bassi, defending former Vatican official Fabrizio Tirabassi, said in a statement that they were seeking to end the trial entirely, warning that “We wonder how a fair judgment can be reached under these conditions,” and urging the court to throw out the trial.
Cardinal Angelo Becciu’s defense attorneys, Fabio Viglione and Maria Concetta Marzo, said the response amounted to noncompliance with the court order. They said the case involved “precisely the selective discretion that the court has ruled out,” arguing that “the prosecution cannot unilaterally decide which documents the defense has the right to access,” and that “The right to defense, the equality of the parties, and the adversarial process require full access to the documents.”
Retrial ordered after appeals court said indictment was nullified
The appeals court’s decision to order a retrial came after it concluded that the prosecutors’ refusal to provide all evidence in the first round nullified the original indictment. The appeals court declared a partial mistrial and ordered a retrial, according to the AP account.
Defense lawyers said prosecutors’ response to the appeals court order amounted to contempt, while the prosecution position, as communicated in Thursday’s letter, was that the withheld materials were not necessary for the retrial and posed risks if handed to the defense.
Swiss probe shelved, with prosecutor citing “influence” concerns
The Vatican dispute also intersects with separate scrutiny in Switzerland, where Swiss federal prosecutors shelved an investigation opened in 2020 after the Vatican Secretariat of State accused Crasso, its former money manager, of embezzlement, fraud and disloyal administration in a complaint filed with Swiss prosecutors. The Swiss allegations paralleled those in the Vatican tribunal.
AP reported that in a decision dated April 23, Swiss federal prosecutor Annina Scherrer noted that the Vatican tribunal had acquitted Crasso and his company and fund of the same charges definitively and shelved the Swiss case. In her 31-page ruling, Scherrer also said she was “with a certain surprise” that her requests to Vatican prosecutors to question some key witnesses were refused after being sent to the Vatican Secretary of State to evaluate—adding that the Secretariat of State’s “influence” over the Vatican judicial system, which is supposed to be independent, was demonstrated.
This story uses materials from Associated Press and is licensed under CC0. AI-generated by Main Street Independent’s News Article Generator framework. See methodology at /methodology.