Connection, prevention and the reunion of criminal cases

multiplicity of phases of police operations as a criterion for establishing competence

Abstract

The text essentially addresses two points of tension regarding the theme of connection, both related to the distribution of the criminal action to a given court in detriment to another invested in the same territorial jurisdiction, with the stated purpose of avoiding contradictory court decisions , invariably used to justify, in any case, process meetings. The first concern raised questions, in most cases, the need for prior removal of one or more judges – equally competent – ​​who could also legitimately assess their competence, if the action were randomly distributed according to the criteria of art. 75, CPP. Attention is especially drawn to cases, which are increasingly common, in which the same police operation unfolds into numerous phases, which would justify the permanence, until the last one, of the jurisdiction of the court linked to the beginning of the Operation, especially from possible identities of evidentiary sources, resulting only from chance, with which one seeks to establish links between facts that, in most cases, do not reach the level of connectedness required by procedural law. In a second moment, the text seeks to deconstruct the common belief that the connection, ordinarily, would come with the risk of conflicting decisions. Based on a detailed study of each of the legal connection hypotheses, we arrive at the definition of what would be the essential point to which any risk of conflicting decisions (in connection) could be brought back.