This was a delicate moment. Recapitulative questions are only allowed if they really are recapitulative, that is, if they are used only to take stock of what has been said up until that moment. They make it easier for the judges and jury to follow and at the same time put the witness at his or her ease. A proper recapitulation sends the witness a specific message: what you’ve said was clear, we’ve understood and we ask you to continue in the same way.

Sometimes, though, the formula of the recapitulative question is used to conceal a degree of manipulation. You recapitulate up to a certain point, then slip into the recapitulation something the witness hasn’t actually said, at least not in those terms. Maybe it’s a logical or likely consequence of what was said, or maybe it’s a totally arbitrary implication. The fact remains that these questions that are recapitulative only in appearance tend to suggest an answer or even to pass 220off as an established fact something that the witness hasn’t actually said and maybe never would say.

In short, recapitulative questions, in theory harmless and even useful, are to be handled with caution. Many defence lawyers and many prosecutors object to them regardless, out of caution, to avoid any risk of the testimony being manipulated.

But once again Gastoni said nothing, which surprised me. Maybe the fact that the witness was talking about offences committed by the defendant – basically, he was accusing him of drug dealing – had distracted her from such procedural matters.

“So you said that you met Iacopo near the cafe; he was walking calmly and you invited him to have a coffee; you went into the cafe, you had your coffee, he told you he had something new, meaning a new kind of pill, and he offered to let you try it for free. You agreed, he took a pill from his pocket and gave it to you. Is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“Did he give it to you in the cafe or had you gone out by then?”

“He passed it to me in the cafe, under the counter.”

“Who paid for the coffee?”

“I don’t remember.”

“How long were you in the cafe?”

“I don’t know, five minutes…”

“Did Iacopo tell you he was in a hurry?”

“No.”

“Do you know who he’d got that pill from?”

“He said he’d gone to see someone who’d given it to him.”

“Do you know who that was?”

“No.”221

“Do you know when he’d been to see this person?”

“He lived somewhere nearby.”

“You mean Cardace had been to see Gaglione just before you met him outside the cafe?”

It was a leading question, there was no doubt about that.

“Objection, Your Honour, that’s a question that’s clearly trying to suggest the answer,” Gastoni said, barely rising but placing her hands on her bench.

“Sustained. Ask another question, Avvocato Favia.”