Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2014 22:28:29 GMT -6
I have to say, this one has me puzzled. I guess my American brain can't adjust to Italy's take on double jeopardy. Could this go on forever? Could this latest conviction be overruled by a higher court? And is it common in Italy to try someone in absentia? How much loyalty does the US owe Italy on the extradition issue ? Could it come down to a choice of the US's long standing double jeopardy laws ( in this country) and protecting our citizens from being tried after being exonerated or the US's diplomatic relations with Italy ? What could it cost us in foreign policy to deny extradition for Knox ?
I know treaties are treaties, but international legalities can be reviewed on individual basis.
|
|
|
Post by carpathianpeasant on Feb 3, 2014 7:51:39 GMT -6
The British would want a conviction of someone.
Both the Americans and the British would like for it to be someone Italian.
The Italians would prefer that it be the American.
The Americans as a whole wish it would all go away.
The British as a whole wish it never happened.
The Italians as a whole are irritated, so it won't go away and it did happen.
No one has bothered to separate the American from the Italian or vice versa.
No one has bothered to connect the American and the Brit.
There's a need for new evidence, but no one wants to bother with that, either.
The Germans would like for the Italian to stay in Italy (ditto the French).
The Canadians are taking it under advisement.
The Russians are contemplating adding security at the airport.
The Australians have added a special assignment reporter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 17:27:57 GMT -6
The British would want a conviction of someone.
Both the Americans and the British would like for it to be someone Italian.
The Italians would prefer that it be the American.
The Americans as a whole wish it would all go away.
The British as a whole wish it never happened.
The Italians as a whole are irritated, so it won't go away and it did happen.
No one has bothered to separate the American from the Italian or vice versa.
No one has bothered to connect the American and the Brit.
There's a need for new evidence, but no one wants to bother with that, either.
The Germans would like for the Italian to stay in Italy (ditto the French).
The Canadians are taking it under advisement.
The Russians are contemplating adding security at the airport.
The Australians have added a special assignment reporter.
Good commentary, that about sums it up alright. Some of the most brilliant American legal brainiacs say it all comes down to reasonable doubt and they all ( for the most part) think there is enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal.
|
|
|
Post by matador on Feb 4, 2014 0:12:48 GMT -6
I was looking at the first trial and the higher court decision. I don't think that she was exonerated, just that the higher court decision was that the first trial did not prove beyond a doubt that she was guilty which left the lower court the option to retry the case or drop it and they decided to retry. The same happens here, a higher court can not decide a case, but they can set aside the verdict and hand it back to a lower court to either refile and retry or just drop it. Jeopardy does not apply in that situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 3:44:23 GMT -6
I did not know that. I know in Scotland they have 3 verdicts, guilty, not guilty and not proved. If it is not proved then you are presumed guilty, but they did not have enough evidence to prove it. Best not to get in any trouble again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 12:51:55 GMT -6
I was looking at the first trial and the higher court decision. I don't think that she was exonerated, just that the higher court decision was that the first trial did not prove beyond a doubt that she was guilty which left the lower court the option to retry the case or drop it and they decided to retry. The same happens here, a higher court can not decide a case, but they can set aside the verdict and hand it back to a lower court to either refile and retry or just drop it. Jeopardy does not apply in that situation. So IOW, you are speaking of a 'hung jury' where no decision could be made ? Oftimes the state decides not to retry the case unless more pertinent info comes forward, it's just too costly. Double jeopardy comes into play when a jury has handed down a 'not guilty' verdict. Then that case cannot be retried under the law in criminal court. However a civil case can often be brought, as in the OJ case, for monetary compensation. Whether or not any monetary compensation is actually paid is another thing. The defendant is often left bankrupt after a criminal case.
|
|
|
Post by matador on Feb 4, 2014 19:07:58 GMT -6
I was looking at the first trial and the higher court decision. I don't think that she was exonerated, just that the higher court decision was that the first trial did not prove beyond a doubt that she was guilty which left the lower court the option to retry the case or drop it and they decided to retry. The same happens here, a higher court can not decide a case, but they can set aside the verdict and hand it back to a lower court to either refile and retry or just drop it. Jeopardy does not apply in that situation. So IOW, you are speaking of a 'hung jury' where no decision could be made ? Oftimes the state decides not to retry the case unless more pertinent info comes forward, it's just too costly. Double jeopardy comes into play when a jury has handed down a 'not guilty' verdict. Then that case cannot be retried under the law in criminal court. However a civil case can often be brought, as in the OJ case, for monetary compensation. Whether or not any monetary compensation is actually paid is another thing. The defendant is often left bankrupt after a criminal case. No, you said that there was double jeopardy here but there wasn't. In the original trial the jury found Amanda guilty, on her appeal the higher court overturned the conviction and sent it back to the lower court to either retry or drop charges. jeopardy does not apply there. On the retrial she again was found guilty and this time her appeal was denied. Yes, once a person has been found not guilty then jeopardy applies, it also can apply if a judge dismisses a case. A judge can dismiss with or without prejudice. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 21:32:36 GMT -6
So IOW, you are speaking of a 'hung jury' where no decision could be made ? Oftimes the state decides not to retry the case unless more pertinent info comes forward, it's just too costly. Double jeopardy comes into play when a jury has handed down a 'not guilty' verdict. Then that case cannot be retried under the law in criminal court. However a civil case can often be brought, as in the OJ case, for monetary compensation. Whether or not any monetary compensation is actually paid is another thing. The defendant is often left bankrupt after a criminal case. No, you said that there was double jeopardy here but there wasn't. In the original trial the jury found Amanda guilty, on her appeal the higher court overturned the conviction and sent it back to the lower court to either retry or drop charges. jeopardy does not apply there. On the retrial she again was found guilty and this time her appeal was denied. Yes, once a person has been found not guilty then jeopardy applies, it also can apply if a judge dismisses a case. A judge can dismiss with or without prejudice. linkTo be truthful, I didn't follow the first trial that closely. If she was found guilty why was she allowed to leave the country while on appeal ? Is that commonplace in Italy ?
|
|