Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher

[Thanas]

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.

Ok. This is one scenario that is being brought up again and again and I just want to show how utterly ridiculous that is.

First, prosecutors in Europe have finite resources. They usually are only themselves and a secretary, if they even get that much. Maybe an intern or two to help them. They are also on a limited budget, with extra expenses having to be approved. That hardly seem to be criteria of a DA going on a revenge spree.

Second, court and attorney costs in Europe are a miniscule fraction of what they cost in the US. Most European countries have strict bylaws outlining exactly how much money an attorney will make. Is it a lot? Yes. Will it bankrupt you? No. Even more important, most countries in Europe have the state providing financial help to the accused so that he might field a defence. If you are found innocent, the state has to pay for your costs.

So no, the idea of somebody going after you forever makes no sense on the financial front.

[Thanas]

A.) I read the article.

And yet, you are being a moron about this. Why is that?

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

Nope.

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.

Oh yeah, like what?

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.

Bullshit. See my post above why that won't work - even if we ignore all the other stuff that prevents such a thing like, oh, the prosecutor having to show cause before he files another appeal. Once the original decision is final, you cannot be retried.

[Alyeska]

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.

The very idea that you can't be retried is a fundamental bedrock concept of most western judicial systems. Because if you can be retried, you are never innocent. They can try you again and again and again and again until they get the verdict they want.

[Alyeska]

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.

A prosecutor can appeal a GUILTY verdict. He can NEVER appeal a Not Guilty verdict. Ever.

[Stark]

The very idea that you can't be retried is a fundamental bedrock concept of most western judicial systems. Because if you can be retried, you are never innocent. They can try you again and again and again and again until they get the verdict they want.

Putting aside that you are making an extraordinary claim with no evidence whatsoever (well beyond it being beaten into you in civics class), maybe you missed my first post in this thread where I pointed out the big 'appeal' word in the first sentence of the article. What do you imagine this word to mean?

Frankly the fervent belief people have that you either do things the US way or will inevitably collapse into state oppression is fucking hilarious. Do you people honestly believe these things? Like when Rogue says that 'any prosecutor' can 'get a bug up his ass' and 'appeal' something, does he actually believe that? Has his brain turned to jelly? Is the Americhrist National Religion just so strong it turns you all into idiots? That's the big joke here. Appeals bad! INNOCENT IS FOREVER!

[Alyeska]

The very idea that you can't be retried is a fundamental bedrock concept of most western judicial systems. Because if you can be retried, you are never innocent. They can try you again and again and again and again until they get the verdict they want.

Putting aside that you are making an extraordinary claim with no evidence whatsoever (well beyond it being beaten into you in civics class), maybe you missed my first post in this thread where I pointed out the big 'appeal' word in the first sentence of the article. What do you imagine this word to mean?

Frankly the fervent belief people have that you either do things the US way or will inevitably collapse into state oppression is fucking hilarious. Do you people honestly believe these things? Like when Rogue says that 'any prosecutor' can 'get a bug up his ass' and 'appeal' something, does he actually believe that? Has his brain turned to jelly? Is the Americhrist National Religion just so strong it turns you all into idiots? That's the big joke here. Appeals bad! INNOCENT IS FOREVER!

In the US you can't appeal a Not Guilty verdict either. Under no circumstances can it happen.

[Stark]

No shit? Maybe you can't read, but this is a hilariously named 'Italy court'. I'm not sure if you're mentally equipped for this discussion. The close-mindedness you demonstrate is frankly physically stunning. The perfect product of the citizen machine!

So hey anytime you want to prove that what is happening in Italy directly and unavoidably leads to state oppression I'm ready to hear it.

[Alyeska]

No shit? Maybe you can't read, but this is a hilariously named 'Italy court'. I'm not sure if you're mentally equipped for this discussion. The close-mindedness you demonstrate is frankly physically stunning. The perfect product of the citizen machine!

So hey anytime you want to prove that what is happening in Italy directly and unavoidably leads to state oppression I'm ready to hear it.

The reason these legal protections exist is because it has happened. Once upon a time judges used to instruct juries on the exact verdict they must deliver. And if the judge wasn't satisfied by the juries verdict, the judge through the jury in prison. The reason double jeopardy laws exist is because that sort of abuse has historically happened when not prohibited.

American courts trace their roots to English Common Law. A legal history where this bad shit has happened. The laws and precedent exist for the expressed purpose of ensuring they do not happen again.

And evidence of this bad shit happening in modern day? Gitmo. Attempts to get an end run around the laws on indefinite detention (violation of right to a speed trial, right to a trial, etc.), attempts to deny habeas corpus. This state oppression isn't theoretical, its happening right now. Currently its being used against Muslim Brown people, but its still happening.

As to what is happening in Italy. An appeal was filed which vacated the earlier court determination. Which in turn has laid the ground work for a second trial. Based on the wording initially given it has the appearances of over turning a Not Guilty verdict and enacting a second trial. A clear violation of Double Jeopardy as understood by the United States. Under those specific circumstances, extradition is highly unlikely to take place.

However, as was mentioned in page three of this thread, Italian legal terms have different definitions and meanings. So that muddles the water. And on top of that media reporting almost certainly made it even less clear. Under that circumstance, Amanda Knox was never actually innocent in the first place. What actually happened would be comparable to a Mistrial in the US court systems. And under that scenario, an extradition is far more likely.

Its the actual legal meaning of the first judicial intervention that released Amanda that is key to the entire situation. And if that court effectively gave Amanda a mistrial, then the appeal was simply an attempt to seek permission to retry her under those circumstances. Having to appeal a mistrial would be considered odd in the US, a prosecutor can simply go at it again without permission, but this would be where differences in the legal systems between the countries become more evident.

[Stark]

Is that a really long way of saying 'Mother Goose said' and 'I read the article wrong and flew off the handle'? I'm sad you can't address the hyperbole properly, but then you've been out-posted by Flagg who has already explained the distinction and even elaborated on the abract reason behind it.

Out posted by Flagg.

Outside the relevance to the US refusing extradition (like they need a reason to shield their citizens) what relevance does the constant repetition of the struggle to understand the concept of 'other legal systems' even have? Beyond the paranoid nonsense you were fed as a child, I mean.

[Thanas]

No shit? Maybe you can't read, but this is a hilariously named 'Italy court'. I'm not sure if you're mentally equipped for this discussion. The close-mindedness you demonstrate is frankly physically stunning. The perfect product of the citizen machine!

So hey anytime you want to prove that what is happening in Italy directly and unavoidably leads to state oppression I'm ready to hear it.

The reason these legal protections exist is because it has happened. Once upon a time judges used to instruct juries on the exact verdict they must deliver. And if the judge wasn't satisfied by the juries verdict, the judge through the jury in prison. The reason double jeopardy laws exist is because that sort of abuse has historically happened when not prohibited.

American courts trace their roots to English Common Law. A legal history where this bad shit has happened. The laws and precedent exist for the expressed purpose of ensuring they do not happen again.

And guess what, Italy takes its roots from the much older and far more advanced legal system of Rome, which would eventually turn into the Inquistional system.

Please go ahead and explain to me why a system that never bothered that much with juries would be concerned about jury abuse.

And evidence of this bad shit happening in modern day? Gitmo. Attempts to get an end run around the laws on indefinite detention (violation of right to a speed trial, right to a trial, etc.), attempts to deny habeas corpus. This state oppression isn't theoretical, its happening right now. Currently its being used against Muslim Brown people, but its still happening.

If we are going to draw completely unfounded connections, I might just as well point out that none of the nations that have an inquisitional system are running gitmo. BTW, you going "this exist to prevent abuse" and then immediately pointing out abuse happening is not a great endorsement either.

As to what is happening in Italy. An appeal was filed which vacated the earlier court determination. Which in turn has laid the ground work for a second trial. Based on the wording initially given it has the appearances of over turning a Not Guilty verdict and enacting a second trial.

No, because no decisions in the Italian (and most European) systems are final until they no longer are not or cannot be appealed.

However, as was mentioned in page three of this thread, Italian legal terms have different definitions and meanings. So that muddles the water. And on top of that media reporting almost certainly made it even less clear. Under that circumstance, Amanda Knox was never actually innocent in the first place. What actually happened would be comparable to a Mistrial in the US court systems. And under that scenario, an extradition is far more likely.

Its the actual legal meaning of the first judicial intervention that released Amanda that is key to the entire situation. And if that court effectively gave Amanda a mistrial, then the appeal was simply an attempt to seek permission to retry her under those circumstances. Having to appeal a mistrial would be considered odd in the US, a prosecutor can simply go at it again without permission, but this would be where differences in the legal systems between the countries become more evident.

I think it is the closest to a mistrial but all this issue about terminology and saying "no no they actually meant a mistrial" is pretty damned hilarious. Why can't people accept that in Europe court decisions are never final until they are no longer appealed?

[Stark]

I'm surprised you didn't mention all those OTHER things the legal basis protects you from; detention without trial indefinitely, secret courts, summary execution, justice by decree, etc. How 'protected' do Americans feel?

Its almost like they've been tricked by a system to focus on useless shit without recognisng the actual abuse that is happening. :V

[Alyeska]

And guess what, Italy takes its roots from the much older and far more advanced legal system of Rome, which would eventually turn into the Inquistional system.

Please go ahead and explain to me why a system that never bothered that much with juries would be concerned about jury abuse.

Context is important. I was explaining why several of these laws are in place in places such as the UK and US.

If we are going to draw completely unfounded connections, I might just as well point out that none of the nations that have an inquisitional system are running gitmo. BTW, you going "this exist to prevent abuse" and then immediately pointing out abuse happening is not a great endorsement either.

So, you'd rather we not try and stop abuses and just let them happen? Got it, I expect to see you stop bemoaning how evil Obama is.

The laws exist to attempt to prevent abuses. That abuses happen does not invalidate the concept. Or you could argue criminal law is pointless because crime exists even though there are laws put in place to stop crime.

No, because no decisions in the Italian (and most European) systems are final until they no longer are not or cannot be appealed.

Any verdict, including Not Guilty, can be appealed? This is a completely alien concept to me. I am honestly interested in seeing how US courts react to extradition requests on cases that already had a Not Guilty verdict on them before.

I think it is the closest to a mistrial but all this issue about terminology and saying "no no they actually meant a mistrial" is pretty damned hilarious. Why can't people accept that in Europe court decisions are never final until they are no longer appealed?

Common language helps. When you use a word but impart in a different meaning, it causes confusion. So we look for something we can compare it to to give a better understanding.

Why is it hard to accept? Because that concept when paired with a "Not Guilty" verdict is completely alien to people from the US.

[Alyeska]

I'm surprised you didn't mention all those OTHER things the legal basis protects you from; detention without trial indefinitely, secret courts, summary execution, justice by decree, etc. How 'protected' do Americans feel?

Its almost like they've been tricked by a system to focus on useless shit without recognisng the actual abuse that is happening. :V

Yeah, so blinded that I completely didn't mention that shit earlier in this thread. Thank you for setting me straight Stark, your wisdom is truly complete.

[Beowulf]

I think it is the closest to a mistrial but all this issue about terminology and saying "no no they actually meant a mistrial" is pretty damned hilarious. Why can't people accept that in Europe court decisions are never final until they are no longer appealed?

How many times can a case be appealed? Is there a limit?

[Thanas]

Context is important. I was explaining why several of these laws are in place in places such as the UK and US.

Yeah and none of that matters to Italy.

So, you'd rather we not try and stop abuses and just let them happen? Got it, I expect to see you stop bemoaning how evil Obama is.

Are you purposely being stupid now? Am I talking to an adult here?

Any verdict, including Not Guilty, can be appealed? This is a completely alien concept to me. I am honestly interested in seeing how US courts react to extradition requests on cases that already had a Not Guilty verdict on them before.

Hopefully not by being morons.

Common language helps. When you use a word but impart in a different meaning, it causes confusion. So we look for something we can compare it to to give a better understanding.

Why is it hard to accept? Because that concept when paired with a "Not Guilty" verdict is completely alien to people from the US.

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.

[Thanas]

I think it is the closest to a mistrial but all this issue about terminology and saying "no no they actually meant a mistrial" is pretty damned hilarious. Why can't people accept that in Europe court decisions are never final until they are no longer appealed?

How many times can a case be appealed? Is there a limit?

Until the highest court has spoken or a higher court declines the appeal and the appeal of that decision is rejected by an even higher court.

[Grumman]

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.

Has that ever happened? The closest that comes to mind is O.J. Simpson, who only said "If I did it".

If it hasn't, this sounds a lot like the mythological "ticking time bomb" scenario as a way to justify methods that are far more likely to be abused than to be used legitimately.

[Terralthra]

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.

A prosecutor can appeal a GUILTY verdict. He can NEVER appeal a Not Guilty verdict. Ever.

This...isn't true. A prosecutor can appeal a not guilty verdict, but only on certain grounds. A mistrial resulting in the dismissal of charges, or a directed verdict, are examples of said grounds.

[Serafina]

I think it is the closest to a mistrial but all this issue about terminology and saying "no no they actually meant a mistrial" is pretty damned hilarious. Why can't people accept that in Europe court decisions are never final until they are no longer appealed?

How many times can a case be appealed? Is there a limit?

Of course there is.
In laymans terms, you can climb a ladder of ever-higher courts until you hit the top. You then have to accept that decision however it turns out.

So for example*, a case could go to a municipal court which rules in favor of party A. B appeals the decision, it goes to a state court which rules in favor of party B. A appeals the decision, it goes to a federal court which rules in favor of party B again. So A appeals the decision again, it goes to the supreme court, and that decision can't be appealed because its the final court you can go to.


*Note that this is a very simplified version of how it works in Germany and just supposed to illustrate the basic system. Thanas pointed out that, in Italy, you just have the higher court decide whether an appeal is valid - the new ruling is then made by a court of a lower level. Still, the system works on the same principle - you go to higher courts to get appeals and can do so until you run out (though there may not always be a new trial, the higher court might just say "sorry, no reason to grant an appeal).

[Thanas]

It also works in Germany that way. Courts send cases back for a retrial with "detailed instructions".

[PeZook]

Second, court and attorney costs in Europe are a miniscule fraction of what they cost in the US. Most European countries have strict bylaws outlining exactly how much money an attorney will make. Is it a lot? Yes. Will it bankrupt you? No. Even more important, most countries in Europe have the state providing financial help to the accused so that he might field a defence. If you are found innocent, the state has to pay for your costs.

So no, the idea of somebody going after you forever makes no sense on the financial front.

There are costs that are unrelated to the trial itself, though: opportunity costs, the risk of losing your job, etc.

Your life can be ruined by constant court battles even if you don't actually go bankrupt ; My family was almost destroyed by such, though it was a civil rather than a criminal matter.

What I think is the crux of the issue is that European prosecutors are not generally rewarded for convictions, so they do not have an incentive to pressure suspects into guilty pleas, stack juries and do other underhanded shit or risk losing their job. A strict definition of double jeopardy is absolutely necessary when you incentivize the prosecutors to convict convict convict, but not really when conviction rates don't make or break their careers.

Plus of course the appeals process doesn't really work like most people envision: you need grounds for an appeal or it will be thrown out. It's not "I don't like the verdict", it has to be something substantial like procedural errors or new evidence surfacing. If you appeal without a reason the appeal gets shot down in flames. Then you can say that was unfair and appeal higher and it will get shot down as well: none of these will even require the court to call the defendant up.

[Alyeska]

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.

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.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Are there seriously people so retarded in this thread that the think a prosecutor can't appeal an apellate court's reversal of a prior conviction? Because that's actually what happened here.

[Ralin]

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.

Has that ever happened? The closest that comes to mind is O.J. Simpson, who only said "If I did it".

If it hasn't, this sounds a lot like the mythological "ticking time bomb" scenario as a way to justify methods that are far more likely to be abused than to be used legitimately.

Pretty much this. It's at worst an outlier, and one I can live with. The European legal system may have other safeguards to stop them from happening, but the issues people are giving for the whole double jeopardy concept have happened in our history.

Hell, even if someone did go on national TV after being acquited and say, "I killed the bastard and no one can touch me for it!" we still have ways to punish them, what with perjury charges and wrongful death suits and such. OJ wasn't exactly living the good life after he got off.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just to make it emphatic: What you cannot do as a prosecutor in the US is appeal a jury finding of not guilty. if the jury finds you guilty, and then a lower appellate court finds you not guilty, the prosecution can still appeal that finding to a higher appellate court, because it was a finding of an appellate court and not an actual verdict. The verdict is presumed absolute when it is rendered not guilty, but the people in this thread are morons who don't understand their own law code; in no way shape or form is an appeal of a reversal of the original verdict by the prosecution forbidden in the US.