When a child’s word accuses: between child protection and the presumption of innocence

The case against Mauro Martelli, former European boxing champion, illustrates with singular force the violence of a criminal charge based essentially on the testimony of a minor. Acquitted after six years of proceedings thanks to the intervention of Me Emmeline Filliez-Bonnard, this case is a reminder that behind the “judicial victory” often lies a shattered life: loss of employment, social isolation, declining health and an infamous label almost impossible to erase completely.

The presumption of innocence: a bulwark against emotion

In our constitutional state, the presumption of innocence is not an abstract formula; it’s a concrete and constant protection. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If any doubt remains, it must be resolved in favor of the accused.

However, when it comes to sexual offences against minors, the temptation is great to overturn this principle. Because we want – and rightly so – to protect children, we sometimes come to believe that accusation automatically rhymes with guilt. The first judgment convicting Mr Martelli, before we intervened in his defense, was largely based on the girl’s supposed credibility, to the detriment of objective elements that exonerated him.

The child’s word: between vulnerability and malleability

Protecting children is a fundamental requirement, but this protection does not mean blindly believing every story and ignoring the context. In this case, the Court of Appeal highlighted a toxic family climate and the possibility that the child had been influenced by his parents’ conflict.

Please note: Contrary to popular belief, the judicial truth does not always come out of the mouths of children.

A minor may make inaccurate statements without realizing the implications, sometimes to “save” a parent, or to respond to what he or she believes the adult expects of him or her. Psychology has now established that a child’s testimony is malleable and subject to influences that are often imperceptible and involuntary.

The need for rigorous technical analysis

It is precisely the role of the judiciary – investigators, experts, judges and lawyers – to take this account seriously, while rigorously confronting it with the facts. At Penalex, we ensure that this examination complies with strict methodological standards, such as :

• The NICHD protocol: A scientific audition method designed to limit leading questions and preserve the reliability of statements.

• Psychological context analysis: Identify potential conflicts of loyalty or external pressures.

• Searching for material inconsistencies: confronting claims with physical evidence and diaries.

In our customer’s case, the final acquittal was a reminder that a child can be influenced, and that doubt must always benefit the accused. The legal machine, once set in motion, can be unstoppable; it must therefore be handled with extreme caution, especially when a simple sentence can turn a life into a nightmare.

Penalex’s commitment: for an essential balance

Our daily practice in criminal law confronts us with this dual imperative: to protect minors and, at the same time, preserve the dignity of those unjustly accused. It is this delicate balance that justice is actually about.

We regularly intervene in proceedings where a child’s testimony plays a central role. Our role is to ensure that this testimony is heard, analyzed and put into perspective with the rest of the case, without forfeiting the fundamental guarantees of any defendant.

Link to the full article here!