Cour de révision overturns verdict against Dany Leprince and orders new trial

Thorigné-sur-Dué – 02.07.2026: In a rare and consequential decision, the French Cour de révision on Thursday overturned the conviction of Dany Leprince and cleared the way for a new criminal trial. The case concerns the killing of four members of the Leprince family in September 1994 in Thorigné-sur-Dué (Departement Sarthe), which has since been regarded in France as one of the most sensational criminal cases of the 1990s.

In 1997, Dany Leprince was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Cour d’assises. The now 69-year-old has long denied the crimes and had repeatedly filed petitions for revision. The competent commission examined the current submission and forwarded it to the highest court, which has now annulled the conviction. The annulment does not mean an acquittal, but the referral back to the competent authorities for a renewed examination of the evidence and decision.

According to consistent reports in judicial circles, annulments of verdicts of this kind are extremely rare in France; since the end of the Second World War only a very small number of revision proceedings have led to a new trial. The judges justify their step with newly emerged or hitherto insufficiently considered elements. These include, according to the case files, disputed statements from the family environment, results of a 2023 reconstruction at the crime scene, and contradictions in earlier witness statements that may require a reassessment by an assize chamber.

The public prosecutor’s office and the investigative authorities must now determine the further procedure. A concrete timetable for the new trial is not yet available. Until then the presumption of innocence applies. Representatives of the civil parties and of the defense spoke cautiously and referred to the particular sensitivity of the proceedings for the bereaved as well as for the accused.

The step by the Cour de révision draws attention to the high hurdles for retrial proceedings in French criminal law. Traditionally, revision is linked to special requirements: new facts or evidence must be able to give rise to serious doubts about guilt. In the public debate, this again brings the question of the reliability of earlier investigations and the role of modern forensic methods into focus. At the same time, the judiciary faces the task of carefully re-examining three-decade-old traces and statements under today’s standards.

With the annulment, a long-disputed conviction receives a new legal assessment. When and before which chamber the new trial will take place is open. What is clear, however, is that the judiciary must comprehensively restructure the evidence-gathering under changed conditions.