Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher

[Questor]

To expand, even a directed verdict of "Not Guilty" can be appealed (and that seems to be the closest to this situation).

As for the objections, a lot of it is nationalistic chest thumping. A lot more is ignorance. The claims of "better/worse" that are being thrown around are inappropriate. The inquisitorial system may be (and I do think it is) better from an objective viewpoint, that doesn't change the historical forces that make a jury system predominant in North America. Attempting to compare attitudes/prejudices between the two systems is a folly.

Does the jury system need drastic reform in light of the changes in criminal evidence in the past 150 years, and particularly the last 50? Yes it does. Interestingly, the increasing use of Grand Juries (at least where I live) is an excellent example of a move towards some sort of reform within the jury system.

If be very curious to see if in my lifetime Grand Jury procedures begin to replace traditional ones even for trials. I can't think of a reason why that would be illegal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I know it is impossible to appeal a not guilty verdict rendered by the trial jury in the US, which is a difference from Europe, a real difference; but this doesn't apply to when the judge makes a finding thereof, or essentially anyone except the original trial jury. That's the limitation of the double jeopardy concept.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah and none of that matters to Italy.

Thanas, reread the line of argumentation he was responding to. He was, in that explanation for why Double Jeopardy exists in US law, responding to Stark's argument that the concept of Double Jeopardy itself is foolish. It thus has no bearing on Italy in particular. However, that line of the conversation was not about Italy in particular. So, why should we expect that it be relevant to Italy?

Sometimes Thanas, you need to step back, and make sure that the people you are arguing with are talking about the same thing you are.

[Thanas]

Thanas, reread the line of argumentation he was responding to. He was, in that explanation for why Double Jeopardy exists in US law, responding to Stark's argument that the concept of Double Jeopardy itself is foolish. It thus has no bearing on Italy in particular. However, that line of the conversation was not about Italy in particular. So, why should we expect that it be relevant to Italy?

Because ALy was going on how very important those safeguards are.

Why should it be? Under US law I could get declared not guilty, and literally pull the head of the victim out of my briefcase and start singing "I did it I did it". Doesn't make much sense.

You mock and ridicule Americans for not understanding the Italian legal system. I tell you that the differences listed in this very thread show how Alien that part of the system is.

And then this statement from you proves you are refusing to even consider anything but your preconceived notions. Immediately after asking me rhetorical question essentially telling me that a foreign justice system should not be alien to me, you talk about how alien the US justice system is to you.

Oh ffs, I spent half a year working as an intern in criminal law in the United states. Don't talk to me about preconceived notions here. My opinions are born out of experience and what I consider to be flaws in the system.

Thats the point. Its not just American's who are having a hard time with the Italian system. You in turn cannot understand the American system. A fundamental misunderstanding because of different legal cultures and different legal definitions of words.

You show bewilderment for the American system, then mock Americans for being bewildered by the Italian system.

Yeah yeah yeah, I cannot understand the american system despite having worked in it and passed several uni courses in it as part of my law degree. I understand it just fine, I just consider it backwards and wholly unsuited to the pursuit of justice, as you cannot tell me that one trial with 12 idiots deciding the most important questions is sufficient to competently decided on whether I am innocent or guilty.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I understand it just fine, I just consider it backwards and wholly unsuited to the pursuit of justice, as you cannot tell me that one trial with 12 idiots deciding the most important questions is sufficient to competently decided on whether I am innocent or guilty.

Myself, still amazed from the time I learned that jurors are not allowed to take notes. It is encouraged when you pass your math class, and yet forbidden when you decide whether someone goes free or spends his life in prison. Or is, y'know, terminated.

[TheHammer]

I understand it just fine, I just consider it backwards and wholly unsuited to the pursuit of justice, as you cannot tell me that one trial with 12 idiots deciding the most important questions is sufficient to competently decided on whether I am innocent or guilty.

Myself, still amazed from the time I learned that jurors are not allowed to take notes. It is encouraged when you pass your math class, and yet forbidden when you decide whether someone goes free or spends his life in prison. Or is, y'know, terminated.

I'd imagine so that you don't have scrawled notes that may have misinformation on them, or a "summarized" version that doesn't fit actual testimony. Not to mention potentially missing testimony as you are writing down notes. I believe they would have access to the official court record which would be superior to any notes taken.

[Gaidin]

I imagine a quick jot of where to look and why would go a long way unless they want you to look for hours in context-less court records for what you're looking for makes perfect sense.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I understand it just fine, I just consider it backwards and wholly unsuited to the pursuit of justice, as you cannot tell me that one trial with 12 idiots deciding the most important questions is sufficient to competently decided on whether I am innocent or guilty.

Myself, still amazed from the time I learned that jurors are not allowed to take notes. It is encouraged when you pass your math class, and yet forbidden when you decide whether someone goes free or spends his life in prison. Or is, y'know, terminated.

I'd imagine so that you don't have scrawled notes that may have misinformation on them, or a "summarized" version that doesn't fit actual testimony. Not to mention potentially missing testimony as you are writing down notes. I believe they would have access to the official court record which would be superior to any notes taken.

Might be a regional thing because I had a jury trial on Wednesday and each of the jurors were provided with a notepad and pen.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Doing some quick looking, juror notetaking seems to vary by jurisdiction and the will of the presiding judge. This is what I came up with for PA, which seems to jive with what I remember when I served as an alternate a few years back.

Jurors are permitted to take notes in civil and criminal trials that are expected to last longer than two days. In shorter trials, the judge determines whether to allow jurors to take notes.

If you are selected to serve as a juror in a trial during which notetaking by jurors is permitted, the judge will give you special instructions about notetaking. Remember, jurors are not required to take notes. If notetaking is permitted, it is up to each individual juror to make his or her own decision about whether to take notes. If you do choose to take notes, be sure to follow the judge’s instructions about what to do with your notes during breaks in the trial and about the use of your notes following the trial and during deliberations.

[houser2112]

Myself, still amazed from the time I learned that jurors are not allowed to take notes. It is encouraged when you pass your math class, and yet forbidden when you decide whether someone goes free or spends his life in prison. Or is, y'know, terminated.

I'd imagine so that you don't have scrawled notes that may have misinformation on them, or a "summarized" version that doesn't fit actual testimony. Not to mention potentially missing testimony as you are writing down notes. I believe they would have access to the official court record which would be superior to any notes taken.

Relying on memory is better? I was on a jury in 2007 in Monroe County, NY, and I would have loved to be able to take notes for that 4-day drug trial. I don't recall if we had access to the steno's record, but I do know that note taking was forbidden.

[TheHammer]

Myself, still amazed from the time I learned that jurors are not allowed to take notes. It is encouraged when you pass your math class, and yet forbidden when you decide whether someone goes free or spends his life in prison. Or is, y'know, terminated.

I'd imagine so that you don't have scrawled notes that may have misinformation on them, or a "summarized" version that doesn't fit actual testimony. Not to mention potentially missing testimony as you are writing down notes. I believe they would have access to the official court record which would be superior to any notes taken.

Relying on memory is better? I was on a jury in 2007 in Monroe County, NY, and I would have loved to be able to take notes for that 4-day drug trial. I don't recall if we had access to the steno's record, but I do know that note taking was forbidden.

As others have noted, it varies based on Jurisdiction, but according to one particular jurisdiction, Jurrors were instructed that if they took notes and those notes conflicted with their memory then they should disregard their notes. So it would seem that yes according to the court going from memory was better.

It is pretty standard that the Jurry has access to all testimony, I don't know if they can have the hard copy of the court record, or simply request it be read back to them. But that's the biggest reason I can think for why note taking would be forbidden - They would want Jurrors (in theory) paying full attention at court, with the idea that if their memory failed them grant them access to testimony from the official court record rather than notes scrawled as testimony is given which may or may have correct information on them.