Maurizio Costanzo sentenced to one year for defaming the investigating judge in the Gessica Notaro case

BOLOGNA A warning had already cost him, now a conviction has arrived Maurice Costanzo84 years old, journalist and TV presenter, accused of aggravated defamation against the judge for the Rimini investigation, Vinicio Cantarini, 56 years old, native of Loreto (Ancona). The judge Maria Elena Cola of the Court of Ancona imposed a one-year prison sentence with suspended sentence on condition that he pay 40,000 euros in damages to the offended party. The verdict came last Wednesday.

As judge of the offended party, he forms a civil party with the lawyer Nazzareno Ciucciomei, the trial took place in a different court than where he practices ; Ancona is responsible for Rimini. On an episode of the Maurizio Costanzo show that aired on April 20, 2017, Costanzo had made comments deemed offensive to the judge’s work to issue an interim measure Edson Tavaresex-boyfriend of Jessica Notaryfrom Rimini, disfigured with acid on January 10, 2017.

The precautionary measure concerned stalking episodes before the acid, the investigating judge had ordered a ban on approaching the woman, while the public prosecutor had requested house arrest.

He was also on the show that day Jessica Notary who spoke publicly for the first time three months after the events. Costanzo had said: “Congratulations to this coroner, shall we name the coroner who did this? Let’s name it. I would like to congratulate the coroner. I say to the CSM, the Supreme Council of Magistrates: compliments to this coroner who decided this.

Cantarini’s name had not been mentioned, but the reference had been clear. Costanzo had also turned to the Minister of Justice at the time, Andrew Orlandoand urged “an investigation be conducted against this investigating judge for not doing what the prosecutor asked him to do, keep this guy under house arrest, where is he from? Rimini?”.

According to Costanzo’s defense, there was no defamatory intent. Now he can appeal. However, for the prosecution, he would have damaged the judge’s reputation by claiming that the very serious consequences for the woman were a consequence of the ineffective or superficial attitude of the judge himself, who had not followed the development of the story closely enough. .