Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher

[Gaidin]

Find a better term then. Either way, what they're doing is the same. It just happens to be legal. They're trying her twice. After saying she wasn't guilty. Unless, as has been insinuated by arguments in this thread, differences between the courts, such a statement doesn't matter much. It just comes down to the extradition arguments. Or so I would think.

[Thanas]

Find a better term then. Either way, what they're doing is the same. It just happens to be legal. They're trying her twice. After saying she wasn't guilty. Unless, as has been insinuated by arguments in this thread, differences between the courts, such a statement doesn't matter much. It just comes down to the extradition arguments. Or so I would think.

The stupidity is strong in this one. Pray explain how an appeal is "trying somebody twice".


This is not double jeopardy at all. Not even under US law would it be double jeopardy. It is the appeals process working itself out. Heck, even under US law an appeals court can demand that the case be tried again.

Everybody who is confusing these very basic terms can GTFO of this thread.

[Gaidin]

The stupidity is strong in this one. Pray explain how an appeal is "trying somebody twice".


This is not double jeopardy at all. Not even under US law would it be double jeopardy. It is the appeals process working itself out. Heck, even under US law an appeals court can demand that the case be tried again.

Everybody who is confusing these very basic terms can GTFO of this thread.

Explain it to me great master.

Is this the Italian version of the American's appeals version of saying "interpret it this way" and kicking it back down to the court instead of saying "NOT GUILTY"?

[Flagg]

Everybody who is confusing these very basic terms can GTFO of this thread.

Thank you. Jesus.

A prosecutor in the US can appeal a ruling overturning a conviction in the US and it happens all the time.

[Gaidin]

I've not seen a 'Not Guilty' overturned but whatever.

[Thanas]

Explain it to me great master.

Is this the Italian version of the American's appeals version of saying "interpret it this way" and kicking it back down to the court instead of saying "NOT GUILTY"?

I'll try to keep it simple so that everybody understands this. This is the process:

1. Original court makes a decision.
2. People who do not like that decision appeal to the other court (both sides can usually appeal in Europe)
3. Other court makes a decision
4. People can then appeal that decision to another court
5. BIG BOSS COURT then decides on that appeal
6. BIG BOSS COURT then declares whether the appeal wins or not, if it does the case is then SENT BACK to the lower court for retrial.
(7. retrial happens, under guidelines as dictated by BIG BOSS COURT, retrial then is final except in egregious cases)

Guess what stage we are in now, people?

YEP. STAGE 6.

I don't understand where this "they declared her non-guilty" comes from. Every responsible media outlet in Europe which covered this drama stated that the court overturning the original conviction was not the final decision. If the USA media did that, guess what - the Italian justice system is not responsible for spoonfeeding the US media.

I've not seen a 'Not Guilty' overturned but whatever.

No, because the US system has a stricter definition of double jeopardy than continental Europe. Double jeopardy in Europe only applies is all appeals are exhausted.

However, even in the US a prosecutor can file a motion for mistrial.

[Flagg]

And this appeals court overturned a lower courts ruling. This happens all the time. They simply use a different terminology.

[Stark]

Obviously, because doing so is probably not legal in America. That's ... The whole point. In Italy they can. Cue outraged knee jerk AMERICA BESTO bullshit when the real issue is the one Alyeska raised, that America will refuse extradition. Tbh I think they would anyway because they're hipocritical fuckheads, but that's beside the point.

The public furore is just a big joke.

[Gaidin]

I don't understand where this "they declared her non-guilty" comes from. Every responsible media outlet in Europe which covered this drama stated that the court overturning the original conviction was not the final decision. If the USA media did that, guess what - the Italian justice system is not responsible for spoonfeeding the US media.

Awesome. That's the context I'm looking for. I know I cut it out. But that step 1-7 was the exact thing that someone who's had American Civics but doesn't know shit about Italy needed.

I've not seen a 'Not Guilty' overturned but whatever.

No, because the US system has a stricter definition of double jeopardy than continental Europe.

It seems relevant since the extradition process is now a part of that step 1-7 by default.

[Stark]

I'm curious at which point a conviction becomes final and a case 'over' in American judicial terms. It seems a bit daft to do this while appeals are in progress. Is the state simply prohibited from appealing verdicts? Are you still counted as 'convicted' during appeals against a conviction?

[Rogue 9]

Just the term double jeopardy (ie, from a game show) is hilarious. And yes, the very idea you can't be retried for something is stupid and I think this element of the American legal system leads to unintentional consequences for justice and those who use and work in the system. Of course, its easier to just say OMG NOT LIKE ON LAW AND ORDER for some people.

You're a fucking idiot. The term is from the legal system and the game show plays on it, not the other way around. The American judiciary handles cases like this by the appeals court declaring a mistrial and sending the case back, not by finding the defendant not guilty unless that's what they actually mean.

I'm curious at which point a conviction becomes final and a case 'over' in American judicial terms. It seems a bit daft to do this while appeals are in progress. Is the state simply prohibited from appealing verdicts? Are you still counted as 'convicted' during appeals against a conviction?

Yes (in criminal cases where the verdict is "not guilty") and yes. A mistrial is completely different from being found not guilty. Meanwhile, having been found guilty of a crime, a convict doesn't suddenly get out of jail free just because he files an appeal.

[Gaidin]

I'm curious at which point a conviction becomes final and a case 'over' in American judicial terms. It seems a bit daft to do this while appeals are in progress. Is the state simply prohibited from appealing verdicts? Are you still counted as 'convicted' during appeals against a conviction?

Layman's terms, a defendant can take it up to SCOTUS, assuming SCOTUS will hear it. If there's a reason to appeal it. But you're talking to an engineer here. I'll let Lawyers get into the details there.

[Stark]

So it's so stupid they made it INTO a game show? That's even BETTER.

Is the state being disallowed from appeals a result of (ho ho) double jeopardy or is it a separate thing? Is the hostility towards appeals due to a double jeopardy related view on the finality of convictions? I think there's an interesting (and unintentional) pressure at work for you poor guys.

[Thanas]

Just the term double jeopardy (ie, from a game show) is hilarious. And yes, the very idea you can't be retried for something is stupid and I think this element of the American legal system leads to unintentional consequences for justice and those who use and work in the system. Of course, its easier to just say OMG NOT LIKE ON LAW AND ORDER for some people.

You're a fucking idiot. The term is from the legal system and the game show plays on it, not the other way around. The American judiciary handles cases like this by the appeals court declaring a mistrial and sending the case back, not by finding the defendant not guilty unless that's what they actually mean.

You are the fucking idiot for:
a) failing to read the article, which clearly mentions an appeal process
b) failing to understand what double jeopardy actually means in this context
c) blindly assuming the rest of the world adheres to the very narrow US definition
d) Appeal courts in Europe usually declare verdicts like guilty or non-guilty.

I give you the gameshow.

[Flagg]

Obviously, because doing so is probably not legal in America. That's ... The whole point. In Italy they can. Cue outraged knee jerk AMERICA BESTO bullshit when the real issue is the one Alyeska raised, that America will refuse extradition. Tbh I think they would anyway because they're hipocritical fuckheads, but that's beside the point.

The public furore is just a big joke.

In this case the US "conviction overturned" and the Italian "not guilty" are the exact same thing is what I was getting at. Appeals courts don't determine guilt or innocence, trials do that. That's not to say that appeals courts can't have the final say in the US, but it's usually appealed to a higher court anyway.

[TimothyC]

Thanas - honest question here (I haven't followed the case) - if there was still an appeal pending, then why did they let her return to the US?

[Stark]

What I find interesting is that Rogue is saying that in the US the state won't appeal a finding of 'not guilty', whereas obviously in Italy this is done. It seems that to Americans, being found 'not guilty' is a final result and any attempt to change it is cheating or wrong.

Tim, refer to Miami Vice joke. Unless you're saying that it being an appeal is a lie, or possibly a conspiracy by the freemasons.

[Gaidin]

What I find interesting is that Rogue is saying that in the US the state won't appeal a finding of 'not guilty', whereas obviously in Italy this is done. It seems that to Americans, being found 'not guilty' is a final result and any attempt to change it is cheating or wrong.

As I understand it, it generally is. Other circumstances are appealed.

[Stark]

I'm interested in the idea that this is a side-effect or attitude that results from the extremely violent double jeopardy faith Americans have; after all, once not guilty the process ends and you can't be tried again, so an appeal would be 'cheating'. I'm not sure if this is why many people seem to have a hostile attitude towards appeals in general as 'cheating', when in reality they are a good and proper part of the justice system.

[Flagg]

What I find interesting is that Rogue is saying that in the US the state won't appeal a finding of 'not guilty', whereas obviously in Italy this is done. It seems that to Americans, being found 'not guilty' is a final result and any attempt to change it is cheating or wrong.

Tim, refer to Miami Vice joke. Unless you're saying that it being an appeal is a lie, or possibly a conspiracy by the freemasons.

Yes, a finding by a judge or jury of "not guilty" is the end of that charge. This is because the state is considered to be the more powerful and resourceful entity, which the vast majority of the time is the case. It would be nice for a prosecutor to be able to recharge a case if damning new evidence comes to light, but I guess I'm brainwashed into strongly disliking the idea.

[ChaserGrey]

I'll try to keep it simple so that everybody understands this. This is the process:

1. Original court makes a decision.
2. People who do not like that decision appeal to the other court (both sides can usually appeal in Europe)
3. Other court makes a decision
4. People can then appeal that decision to another court
5. BIG BOSS COURT then decides on that appeal
6. BIG BOSS COURT then declares whether the appeal wins or not, if it does the case is then SENT BACK to the lower court for retrial.
(7. retrial happens, under guidelines as dictated by BIG BOSS COURT, retrial then is final except in egregious cases)

I'm curious at which point a conviction becomes final and a case 'over' in American judicial terms. It seems a bit daft to do this while appeals are in progress. Is the state simply prohibited from appealing verdicts? Are you still counted as 'convicted' during appeals against a conviction?

This whole thing seems to have arisen from bad reporting, as usual, and not so much a difference between legal systems The problem is that the US media reported the Italian appeals court as finding her "not guilty". "Not guilty", under the U.S. system, is a verdict returned by a jury trial during stage (1) or (7), and is considered a final verdict. The American version of the Double Jeopardy clause absolutely prohibits the State from appealing a jury verdict of "not guilty", and that's what Americans think when they hear that term. An appeals court reversing a verdict in steps 2-6 is called a "reversal", which either side can appeal.

So to answer Stark's question, in America a verdict is final if: a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" during (1) or (7); or the defendant is turned down by the US Supreme Court in Step (6); or the defendant basically gives up. A fairly large number of cases do make it all the way through the process, because being turned down for a hearing by a lower court doesn't stop you from appealing up to the next level. Theoretically any case can be appealed up to the Supreme Court, which is why the Court refuses to hear the vast majority of cases brought before it.

Whether the Italian court was correct to order her retried I have no idea. They haven't made their reasons public yet and I have no idea how good or bad they are. Theoretically the Italians could demand her extradition to stand trial but the news analysis pieces I've read say this is unlikely for political and diplomatic reasons. The most likely course is for Knox to be retried in absentia, which is allowed under Italian law.

If she's convicted, expect an appeal to US courts to block extradition on the grounds that the previous court's reversal amounted to a verdict of "not guilty" and that extraditing her to face punishment would therefore violate both the Constitution and the American extradition treaty with Italy, which bars extradition of persons "previously acquitted" of a crime. How that one would play out is frankly anyone's guess.

[ChaserGrey]

Yes, a finding by a judge or jury of "not guilty" is the end of that charge. This is because the state is considered to be the more powerful and resourceful entity, which the vast majority of the time is the case. It would be nice for a prosecutor to be able to recharge a case if damning new evidence comes to light, but I guess I'm brainwashed into strongly disliking the idea.

I think it's a tradeoff, frankly. On the one hand, you have the "I did it, suckers!" scenario discussed upthread. On the other, you have the possibility of a prosecutor with essentially unlimited resources pursuing a defendant he "knows" is guilty until he's convicted or (more likely) gives up and cops a plea rather than spend all his money on appeals. Allowing appeals of "not guilty" verdicts would have corrected at least some miscarriages of justice, but on the other hand, facing expensive appeals could lead to innocent defendants pleading guilty just to get it over with. If that seems unlikely, consider that 97% of all Federal cases brought to a conclusion in 2012 were resolved by a guilty plea, and that research has shown that innocent people do in fact plead guilty under effective duress, that's a real concern. Requiring substantial new evidence for a retrial is a good idea, but in practice I don't trust our courts to determine that. Personally, I'd rather have the double jeopardy clause than stack the deck even more against defendants.

[Rogue 9]

You are the fucking idiot for:
a) failing to read the article, which clearly mentions an appeal process
b) failing to understand what double jeopardy actually means in this context
c) blindly assuming the rest of the world adheres to the very narrow US definition
d) Appeal courts in Europe usually declare verdicts like guilty or non-guilty.

I give you the gameshow.

A.) I read the article.

B.) I know exactly what it means. It means being tried for the same crime twice, which is evidently what's being done.

C.) I don't blindly assume. I know they don't; they plainly don't. I can read the thread. I'm saying that's a bad fucking idea, because it opens the door to all kinds of abuse of state power.

D.) What value is there in a not guilty ruling if it doesn't stick? Once accused, if some prosecutor gets a bug up his ass to go after you again later he can simply appeal and have you thrown back in jail on the same charges. See: Abuse of state power.

[Flagg]

You are the fucking idiot for:
a) failing to read the article, which clearly mentions an appeal process
b) failing to understand what double jeopardy actually means in this context
c) blindly assuming the rest of the world adheres to the very narrow US definition
d) Appeal courts in Europe usually declare verdicts like guilty or non-guilty.

I give you the gameshow.

A.) I read the article.

B.) I know exactly what it means. It means being tried for the same crime twice, which is evidently what's being done.

C.) I don't blindly assume. I know they don't; they plainly don't. I can read the thread. I'm saying that's a bad fucking idea, because it opens the door to all kinds of abuse of state power.

D.) What value is there in a not guilty ruling if it doesn't stick? Once accused, if some prosecutor gets a bug up his ass to go after you again later he can simply appeal and have you thrown back in jail on the same charges. See: Abuse of state power.

Listen Rouge, you're being a fucking moron. People are retried on the same charges all the fucking time.

[Thanas]

Thanas - honest question here (I haven't followed the case) - if there was still an appeal pending, then why did they let her return to the US?

Usually they let you go because you have been found innocent in one instance. Except in the cases of obvious flight risks. (Why they didn't do so in the case is a mystery, most likely because of international pressure to "let the poor girl go").