Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher

[Lord Anubis]

By Ian Johnston and Michelle Kosinksi, NBC News

Italy’s top appeal court on Tuesday overturned Amanda Knox’s acquittal for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher and ordered a retrial.

TODAY's Matt Lauer talks to Amanda Knox's father, Curt, who says his daughter is currently focused on being with her friends, many of whom have stayed her friend while she was in prison.

Kercher died in an apartment that she shared with Knox, who lives in the Seattle area, in Perugia, Italy, in 2007.

Knox, now 25, and her then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were prosecuted and found guilty of killing Kercher in a case that drew world-wide attention.

Prosecutors argued that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher after a drug-fueled sexual assault.

Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison, while Sollecito got 25, but they were acquitted after serving four years.

However on Tuesday, the Court of Cassation, Italy's final court of appeal, said Knox and Sollecito would both face a retrial.
Advertise | AdChoices

Italian law cannot compel Knox to return to Italy and she could be tried in absentia.

The Italian appellate court hearing the case could declare her in contempt of court but that carries no additional penalties.

The long legal saga of Amanda Knox, an American student accused of the violent death of her roommate, British student Meredith Kercher, has made headlines around the world since it began in Perugia, Italy, in late 2007.

"If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova told The Associated Press.

Small-time drug dealer Rudy Hermann Guede, who knew Knox, was convicted and given a 16-year sentence.

Since her release from prison in 2011, Knox has resumed her studies in Seattle.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... urder?lite

Personally I find this to be a complete crock. The original trial and conviction was so badly handled that it even if she was guilty all the evidence has been contaminated that there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she participated in the crime. Not to mention that she's long since returned to the United States and I seriously doubt that she'll be extradited back to Italy after the fiasco that was the last trial. Also I don't think she did commit the crime its just a piss poor frame job being handled by incompetent and corrupt prosecutors who are now trying to save face by convicting an innocent women

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know much about the case, but I think there's a point here about how hard it would be to stop a retrial from turning into a ridiculous media circus. The hope that "but THIS time we'll do it impartially!" sounds to me like very much an idle fantasy.

Frankly, this is an area where I think the US judicial system has an important protection that the Italian one appears to lack: double jeopardy. If a trial finds you innocent, that's it, they can't haul you back in five years later to make another attempt at holding you guilty. A person who (as far as the state can tell) is innocent of a crime shouldn't have to spend the rest of your life refighting that same legal battle because the state has decided to keep doing the trial over and over 'until we get the right answer.'



That might actually be the basis on which the US denies an extradition request, assuming it does which seems plausible. Under the US Constitution, you can't say "okay, we didn't get this person on the murder charge last time because our court fucked up, so let's do it all over again and this time get the right answer!" So I'm not sure the federal government could or would hand them over, just as a European nation might not legally be allowed to hand over a person they thought might be held without trial (i.e. Julian Assange).

Then again, the US might, since this appears to be a common feature of the Italian (European?) judiciary that you can do this, and normally the US and Europe accept each other's judiciaries as basically valid and legal. I don't know.

[Ralin]

Speaking completely out of my ass as a layperson, my guess would be that we'd react the way Canada reacts when we try to extradite someone for a capital case.

[Melchior]

its just a piss poor frame job being handled by incompetent and corrupt prosecutors who are now trying to save face by convicting an innocent women

They (the police, mostly) handled the case terribly, but this just doesn't happen. I assume that you're american, here prosecutors don't get any career benefits by convicting or not convicting people. The possibility of them being corrupted can also be mostly discounted (the family of one of the accused is very rich, unlike the victims'). It has been mere incompetence.

[Stark]

Frankly, this is an area where I think the US judicial system has an important protection that the Italian one appears to lack: double jeopardy. If a trial finds you innocent, that's it, they can't haul you back in five years later to make another attempt at holding you guilty. A person who (as far as the state can tell) is innocent of a crime shouldn't have to spend the rest of your life refighting that same legal battle because the state has decided to keep doing the trial over and over 'until we get the right answer.'

Oh dearrrrrrrrr. You know this was an appeal process, right? They even have appeals in Nazi Germany I mean America. This is like the 'protection' we get when a rich criminal is released during appeals process and fucks off never to return.

[Irbis]

Frankly, this is an area where I think the US judicial system has an important protection that the Italian one appears to lack: double jeopardy. If a trial finds you innocent, that's it, they can't haul you back in five years later to make another attempt at holding you guilty. A person who (as far as the state can tell) is innocent of a crime shouldn't have to spend the rest of your life refighting that same legal battle because the state has decided to keep doing the trial over and over 'until we get the right answer.'

Except, that is not protection. That is yet another way US system is broken. Normally, in Europe, you can't be retried on whim either - there has to be some big circumstance that changed the whole case, otherwise judges will dismiss it out of hand. This is appeal case, which everyone can request. Prosecution loses this one? Then then basically gives up, unlike US one, which for career could very well prosecute again and again. That's why you need double jeopardy - to protect you from flawed, archaic system.

I very much prefer system where serial killer can be retried and imprisoned if someone finds bloody knife with his fingerprints month after the trial, than one where said killer can shout "YES, IT WAS ME!" and play "You're all losers" on a trombone five seconds after being declared innocent by 12 random people grabbed off the street and get away with it, thank you very much

[Lord Anubis]

its just a piss poor frame job being handled by incompetent and corrupt prosecutors who are now trying to save face by convicting an innocent women

They (the police, mostly) handled the case terribly, but this just doesn't happen. I assume that you're american, here prosecutors don't get any career benefits by convicting or not convicting people. The possibility of them being corrupted can also be mostly discounted (the family of one of the accused is very rich, unlike the victims'). It has been mere incompetence.

I'm Canadian. If you bothered to checked you'd know that since its stated right below my name.

Frame jobs do happen. This case was so badly handled and evidence was so blantantly suppressed or mis-presented that any new trial will be a miscarriage of justice.

[PeZook]

I very much prefer system where serial killer can be retried and imprisoned if someone finds bloody knife with his fingerprints month after the trial, than one where said killer can shout "YES, IT WAS ME!" and play "You're all losers" on a trombone five seconds after being declared innocent by 12 random people grabbed off the street and get away with it, thank you very much

Actually I don't think this is how double jeopardy works. AFAIK in the US the judge has to on double jeopardy rather than it being automatically applied, so if you went "Ha ha fuckers I actually did it!" during a press conference, or the cops found a dungeon under your house or something, the DA would appeal, you'd get a retrial which would be allowed on that basis. Or something.

BTW Europe also has double jeopardy protection based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually I don't think this is how double jeopardy works. AFAIK in the US the judge has to on double jeopardy rather than it being automatically applied, so if you went "Ha ha fuckers I actually did it!" during a press conference, or the cops found a dungeon under your house or something, the DA would appeal, you'd get a retrial which would be allowed on that basis. Or something.

Most mistrials can be retried, a hung jury can be, an appeal of a guilty conviction can be retried, nothing turns into not guilty going on trial again in the US. That is simply the end of it in criminal court no matter what else happens. The court system might find a different charge to put you on trial for, but it cannot just be a rephrasing of the crime you were acquitted for, it would have to be a distinctly different part of the crime so this is very rare. Purely civil cases are still possible, but that is only a matter of money.

In fact a huge part of the reason why this protection exists is precisely so that the police cannot intentionally hold back evidence just so that they can hold a chance of a second trial in reserve to try to get someone. If the police honestly didn't find all the evidence first, well, too bad.

[Irbis]

Actually I don't think this is how double jeopardy works. AFAIK in the US the judge has to on double jeopardy rather than it being automatically applied, so if you went "Ha ha fuckers I actually did it!" during a press conference, or the cops found a dungeon under your house or something, the DA would appeal, you'd get a retrial which would be allowed on that basis. Or something.

From what I heard, see here. Judge lazily sees part of evidence, acquits, all further trials are declared invalid. So, no, Fifth Amendment protects you even if you sang in Falsetto you did it right after verdict.

BTW Europe also has double jeopardy protection based on the European Convention on Human Rights.

Uh, which is what I stated, except our double jeopardy has 'new relevant evidence' clause.

[Melchior]

I'm Canadian. If you bothered to checked you'd know that since its stated right below my name.

So... Canada isn't in America and doesn't use common law?

Frame jobs do happen. This case was so badly handled and evidence was so blantantly suppressed or mis-presented that any new trial will be a miscarriage of justice.

That's quite a non sequitur. Also, it doesn't make any sense as a frame job, and would require to posit a vast conspiracy; the facts are better explained by mere incompetence.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's become a big enough cause celebre in Washington State to where I suspect Amanda could just take to the woods and "never" be "found" (i.e. be supported by everyone). I think it's kind of retarded how that happened, but I feel pretty bad for her being threatened being dragged away from home again to harsh and hot Italia. This may more than a little to do with my own homesickness for Cascadia at the moment --

Anyway, the Italian court system pulls these stunts so often it was frankly to be expected. Nobody except for this prosecutor with his moronic, fixed, 1980s eye on American-style (ironically) panic over satanic rituals seriously believes that she's guilty, but the grinding progress of back and forth judiciary is not inherently bad in Italy... In Italy. The problem in the US is that we're much harsher to criminals here, so Amanda is bound to be expelled from college (again), meaning it will be even harder for her to start a life when this finally ends, and it's basically impossible for her to find work. So all she can do is perpetuate the media storm to get money to keep from bankrupting her entire extended family.

When the justice system of another country and the US belief in automatic castigation and suspicion of anyone even close to criminal activities, a kind of ritual taintedness, meet, the end result is bad things because foreign judicial processes do have administration consequences for you while living in the US, and that is wrong. Our system tends to offer decisive results; you're either imprisoned or you're not (whether or not you're guilty), and exoneration tends to be decisive (see all the falsely accused black men released by the Innocence Project lately).

I'd prefer a legal compromise where the prosecution is required to turn its evidence over to a US court and a US court proceeds to try Amanda Knox for it, not an Italian one. This is relatively common in other countries--for example, I understand it is standard policy in France rather than extradition--and I actually detest generally the common law judicial system, and think that trials by professional jury are better, but in this situation--I'll be honest, everything I've ever read about the Italian judicial system, the endless circus of acquittals and appeals and all the mob figures getting minor time, the corrupt politicians going back to Parliament--leads me to believe it is corrupt, dangerous, and ineffective even though in principle the laws behind it are better than our own.

[Thanas]

Here's what is going to happen:
- Europeans are going to say "eh, this sort of thing always happens in every European nation"
- Uninformed americans are going to scream "corruption, double jeopardy, bad prosecutor, italian justice system sucks anyway".

The latter is kinda insulting considering the Italian justice system has fought very valiantly against organized crime much tougher and more powerful than the US mob will ever be and has always hounded politicians a lot.

If the US really respects the laws of their partner nation of Italy, they should extradite her. Get her great counsel on state's dime, whatever. But extradition must happen.

[Jub]

If the US really respects the laws of their partner nation of Italy, they should extradite her. Get her great counsel on state's dime, whatever. But extradition must happen.

I can respect all the rest of what you've said, but given the way the last trial went why should the US extradite her? The trial was a gong show and Italian perceptions of Ms. Knox have been poisoned by the media. If Italy really wants a fair trial they should allow her to appear via video from the US and even then they shouldn't expect her to bother.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Extradition is a courtesy between states, not a right. And considering how the Italians recently played fast and loose with that courtesy viz. India, why should they expect anything different from others, here?

[TheHammer]

Look at it from Knox' perspective as well. She was already "found guilty" once and later acquited. If I were in her shoes, there is NO WAY I'd willingly subject myself to that again. I suspect any extradition attempt will fail given current public perception here.

Even if you want to dismiss the notion of double jeapoardy in this case, unless there is new evidence, why should she be forced to stand trial again? It's not as if they don't have a solid suspect, against whom they had plenty of legitimate evidence, in Rudy Guede.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think that's very relevant, Hammer -- I mean, let's be honest, it's not rational to EVER expect someone to find being tried for a crime to be "fair". If it they did, we wouldn't need to arrest people at all, and they'd voluntarily report to disintegration chambers like in a bad Star Trek episode.

[Thanas]

If the US really respects the laws of their partner nation of Italy, they should extradite her. Get her great counsel on state's dime, whatever. But extradition must happen.

I can respect all the rest of what you've said, but given the way the last trial went why should the US extradite her? The trial was a gong show and Italian perceptions of Ms. Knox have been poisoned by the media. If Italy really wants a fair trial they should allow her to appear via video from the US and even then they shouldn't expect her to bother.

There is no guarantee the trial will be an unfair one. Media perception also is less of a worry because juries in Italy are unlike the american ones where you pluck 12 idiots of the street and call it justice. And the first trial was not a gong show. It hinged on several judgement calls made by prosecutors which could have gone either way. Was the evidence overall sufficient enough? First court said yes, second court said no, third court said it would need a new trial to finally figure it out.

As for appearing via video, that would be pretty bad considering that Knox has to communicate with her lawyers before and during the trial, for which video would most likely be insufficient.

[TheHammer]

I don't think that's very relevant, Hammer -- I mean, let's be honest, it's not rational to EVER expect someone to find being tried for a crime to be "fair". If it they did, we wouldn't need to arrest people at all, and they'd voluntarily report to disintegration chambers like in a bad Star Trek episode.

Its relevant in that there is no way she is going to willingly go back to Italy to stand trial. You often see people surrendering themselves to police when accused of crimes, with the notion that they will be given a fair trial and rightly acquitted. A desire to have their name cleared because they've done nothing wrong. Yes it's quite possible that even if this were her first go-round she wouldn't have willingly done so, however she also thought all along during the first trial that she would be found innocent. Having been found guilty once, and innocent a second time, I'd think she'll use every tool at her disposal to avoid a "best two out of three".

[Jub]

If the US really respects the laws of their partner nation of Italy, they should extradite her. Get her great counsel on state's dime, whatever. But extradition must happen.

I can respect all the rest of what you've said, but given the way the last trial went why should the US extradite her? The trial was a gong show and Italian perceptions of Ms. Knox have been poisoned by the media. If Italy really wants a fair trial they should allow her to appear via video from the US and even then they shouldn't expect her to bother.

There is no guarantee the trial will be an unfair one. Media perception also is less of a worry because juries in Italy are unlike the american ones where you pluck 12 idiots of the street and call it justice. And the first trial was not a gong show. It hinged on several judgement calls made by prosecutors which could have gone either way. Was the evidence overall sufficient enough? First court said yes, second court said no, third court said it would need a new trial to finally figure it out.

As for appearing via video, that would be pretty bad considering that Knox has to communicate with her lawyers before and during the trial, for which video would most likely be insufficient.

I would say there is every chance given the issues with the evidence and the way the initial investigation was done. A case based around bad police work with questionable evidence is always going to raise questions about fairness. Also, they've already had two kicks at the can how many more do they get, especially given the aforementioned bad police work.

[Thanas]

Actually, they really only have had one kick. The appeal process said the evidence had been given incorrect weight (judgement call) the next court then said that a new trial was needed. So they are supposed to redo the first trial, really.

[Jub]

Actually, they really only have had one kick. The appeal process said the evidence had been given incorrect weight (judgement call) the next court then said that a new trial was needed. So they are supposed to redo the first trial, really.

Okay, I can see why they'd want a retrial in those circumstances. I still think the way the investigation was handled was a bit ham fisted and that's enough to make me think that the US should allow her to stay home and try to rebuild her life.

EDIT: Would you want a German citizen to stand trial in the US if the first trail and the initial investigation was as contentious as this trial has been?

[Thanas]

No, but that has more to do with the US legal system itself.

[Jub]

No, but that has more to do with the US legal system itself.

I bet US citizens feel the same way about Italy's legal system.

[Thanas]

At first glance, that is a fair point, but then again, the system not based on popularity is not the US one here.