Italian court acquits seismologists convicted of manslaughte

[Thanas]

I feel that this is an undue burden to put on innocent persons.

Nearly all of Europe disagrees. We've been over this before. Restating your position in every thread about this will not make it stronger, nor will it make it any less tiresome. In fact, I flat out refuse to discuss something all over again with somebody who does not seem to remember the last arguments about this.


As to the term, the prosecution is alleging they violated lege artis. That is something that gets you hauled before tribunals and courts in every nation, even the USA.

[Gaidin]

Can someone help me out with that latin phrase and what it means legally and possibly research when everything I find in google is for...well...the medical field?

[Simon_Jester]

From what I'm piecing together, Thanas might mean that the "law of the art" of seismologists is (by the Italian court) supposed to be to follow certain best practices. And that failing to follow these best practices, in a way resulting in death, can be a crime.

On its merits that sounds pretty damn stupid to me, since there is no accepted procedure by which seismologists can accurately predict future earthquakes. Or by which they can reasonably know for certain which 'low-probability' quakes will actually happen.

I feel that this is an undue burden to put on innocent persons.

Nearly all of Europe disagrees. We've been over this before. Restating your position in every thread about this will not make it stronger, nor will it make it any less tiresome. In fact, I flat out refuse to discuss something all over again with somebody who does not seem to remember the last arguments about this.

Oh, I remember- but then, I wasn't really talking to you about the issue this time in the first place. Your getting cranky about the fact that I occasionally restate an opinion after nine months in the context of a different case strikes me as unreasonable. Should I get snarky about someone who restates their opinion regarding, say, the death penalty twice in a one-year timespan?

For that matter, while many matters were addressed (including correction of many errors and misbeliefs on my part) in the earlier discussion... frankly, the issue I am mentioning now was never really addressed:

My belief that such appeals are an undue burden on innocent defendants.

I get that the Italian taxpayers are the ones stuck paying for the scientists' legal defense while this witch-hunt goes on, not the scientists themselves. I get that in principle this lets the Italian courts reassure themselves that they are really, really thorough. I get that this is a way to help resolve the issue of repeated errors in judgment, sometimes at multiple levels of the courts, to eliminate any possibility of a less-than-perfect ruling. I get that the Italian prosecutors are supposedly extremely fair... even if on the face of it the entire grounds of their case sounds ridiculous.*

But none of this actually addresses my point that this "you're guilty, you're innocent, wait no you're not, maybe" methodology is inevitably going to be a burden on anyone.

It'd be infinitely worse in the US where the prosecution can literally spend defendants into the ground by forcing them into costly legal battles, or coerce them into plea-bargaining or burning their life savings in an attempt to defend against a spurious charge.

But that doesn't make it a good thing to experience at the hands of the Italian courts, just because it'd be worse to experience it at the hands of the American courts.

So no, frankly, I am still not convinced it's a good idea for an appeals court to pick up the case of someone who's been found innocent and go "hmm, gee, there's an X% chance that the evidence was misweighted by the previous judge, let's spend another year thinking this over while you bite your nails and wonder whether you'll be going to prison."

It strikes me as a good way to do undue harm, even assuming (which I do assume) that the Italian judiciary is reliable about compensating people for any direct losses that result from the costs and stress of prosecution appeals.
____________________

*I mean, seriously, earthquake prediction is barely even an art, let alone a science. Damned if I can see how it'd have precisely defined lege artis when the art is too ill-defined for its laws to be well-known. And without well-known lege artis, how can you charge someone with manslaughter for violating them?

[Melchior]

On its merits that sounds pretty damn stupid to me, since there is no accepted procedure by which seismologists can accurately predict future earthquakes. Or by which they can reasonably know for certain which 'low-probability' quakes will actually happen.

I'm going to try to summarize this in a digestible and hopefully accurate way for americans apparently systematically betrayed by their media outlets:
i) nobody was actually sentenced for failing to predict an earthquake;
ii) some scientists and a public official were sentenced (in the first of three degrees of judgement) for saying that there was no risk (presumably due to political pressure higher up, a crony of Berlusconi directed the agency at the time), when the risk existed - people felt safe, didn't leave their homes and died (clearly if you can't predict earthquakes you can't say that there is no risk either, this is the violation of professional standards mentioned above);
iii) in the second degree of judgement it was determined that only the public official, not the scientists, is criminally responsible for what happened (I don't know the technicalities, but I assume that it's due to the fact that being a seismologist isn't a PR position).

[Simon_Jester]

Ah.

Now see, I understood the basic premise in (ii) except that my understanding was that the seismologists had asserted that the risk was low, not that it was nonexistent.

If you have reason to believe that earthquakes might occur, and you say otherwise, that's wrong, I agree. Especially if people listen to you and die.

If you have reason to believe that earthquakes might occur, and you do not sufficiently emphasize the risk, and people ignore it and die... not your fault, I would think. As you note, being a seismologist isn't a PR position.

[Alyrium Denryle]

ii) some scientists and a public official were sentenced (in the first of three degrees of judgement) for saying that there was no risk (presumably due to political pressure higher up, a crony of Berlusconi directed the agency at the time), when the risk existed - people felt safe, didn't leave their homes and died (clearly if you can't predict earthquakes you can't say that there is no risk either, this is the violation of professional standards mentioned above);

That is still pretty fucking ridiculous. If I say that there is next to zero risk of being attacked by a crocodile in the US, and someone believes me and swims about in a lake where some moron released their former pet nile crocodile and gets their arm bitten off and this person--refusing to believe that they have been bitten by a crocodile despite seeing it and feeling its teeth and jaw pressure on their tender flesh--fails to seek medical attention and dies, the prosecutor in this case would think me liable, which is clearly insane.

Even if they said there was Zero risk of an earthquake, when there clearly IS an earthquake going on, in an area where people presumably are taught what to do when an earthquake happens, people should not have stayed in their homes.

"Oh well the scientist said there would be no earthquake, so clearly despite the fact that the earth is shaking and my load-bearing walls are beginning to crumble there is no earthquake, and I shall remain here--in my house which was not constructed to any sort of sane earthquake code--and play Solitaire"

It is exactly as ridiculous had they made a statement about said earthquake being of Low Probability. Anyone stupid enough to stay in their home with an earthquake going on would have done so anyway, and if it is a matter of pre-earthquake evacuation, they could never have given an accurate time-frame. Unless the SOP in Italy is to camp on the sidewalk or in the yard for three weeks following even a hint of Earthquake.

There is no scenario under which the earthquake deaths could have been prevented through the use of a different statement without surreal levels of earthquake paranoia on the part of the population.

Last I checked, for someone to be liable for a death, their action or inaction actually has to be causally related to someone's death. A doctor could be held liable if they failed to give an obvious Brittle Bone Disease diagnosis, and the patient failed to take prudent precautions, tripped on the sidewalk while skipping merrily down it, and died from massive bodily trauma that would not have killed him had he not had brittle bone disease.

Said doctor could not be held liable if he or she said "No, I dont think you have Brittle Bone Disease" and the patient--thinking his bones were made of titanium--willfully stepped in front of an 18 wheeler and died from massive bodily trauma that would have killed irrespective of disease status.

[LaCroix]

I can only restate what Thanas has said - and (maybe because I also have studied law, I don't know) I entirely share his frustration about people not able to understand the differences in systems, and why people in Europe do not feel that strongly about "undue burden on the accused if the trial takes a bit longer", because it doesn't really put a burden on us, apart from having to wait longer, which we don't see as 'undue'.

Probably a clash of cultures.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I can only restate what Thanas has said - and (maybe because I also have studied law, I don't know) I entirely share his frustration about people not able to understand the differences in systems, and why people in Europe do not feel that strongly about "undue burden on the accused if the trial takes a bit longer", because it doesn't really put a burden on us, apart from having to wait longer, which we don't see as 'undue'.

Probably a clash of cultures.

Keep in mind, in the US people tend to be imprisoned or out on very geographically restrictive bail before the trial and for the duration. So, such a system here would be absolutely unbearable, because a defendant would either spend 6 years (or however long) in prison awaiting their Absolute Final Verdict, or they would be in the hole for a very large sum of bail money and unable to leave the local jurisdiction which in the US can be very very small in geographic size. Additionally, holding down a job is rather difficult if you are charged with a crime here. If you are charged with a crime, where employment is concerned you might as well be guilty. Hell, many people hold being acquitted against you.

[Grumman]

I can only restate what Thanas has said - and (maybe because I also have studied law, I don't know) I entirely share his frustration about people not able to understand the differences in systems, and why people in Europe do not feel that strongly about "undue burden on the accused if the trial takes a bit longer", because it doesn't really put a burden on us, apart from having to wait longer, which we don't see as 'undue'.

Probably a clash of cultures.

Or maybe just a big old blind spot. Remember Julian Assange? Remember how Sweden decided to reopen an investigation closed with the prosecutor saying there was no reason to suspect he was guilty that just happened to be against a journalist who was pissing off a bunch of major governments?

[Simon_Jester]

I can only restate what Thanas has said - and (maybe because I also have studied law, I don't know) I entirely share his frustration about people not able to understand the differences in systems, and why people in Europe do not feel that strongly about "undue burden on the accused if the trial takes a bit longer", because it doesn't really put a burden on us, apart from having to wait longer, which we don't see as 'undue'.

Probably a clash of cultures.

Well, I personally find the idea of being sent to prison, especially for a crime I didn't commit, very alarming. Not just because US prisons are scary, but because I value my good name and reputation and my freedom. Even a very pleasantly humane prison system is going to, in a real sense, take away those things from inmates. You can't be convicted of a crime, especially in a high profile case, without harm to your reputation, and any prison involves taking away some freedom.

So I consider the prospect of having to spend a long period of time worrying over whether one will go to prison as a very serious penalty. It limits one's ability to make long-term plans, to enjoy one's life, and in general to live as a citizen of a free society should.

We of course accept this penalty for people whose guilt in a crime is still under serious investigation. But I think there is much to be said for the idea that people have a right to a trial process that proceeds in a timely fashion, without taking up an undue number of their limited years on this Earth.

When a trial can potentially be reopened months or years after being 'resolved' in the defendant's favor, it is bound to have what, in the judicial tradition I'm familiar with, is called a "chilling effect." In some cases that's justified, if the appealing prosecution has compelling reason to believe there's been a serious failure of the judicial process.

But it does have real potential for abuse, especially in cases where the prosecution harbors some bias against the defendant*, or where it might be subjected to state influence encouraging prosecution of a designated target (like, possibly, Assange).
___________________________

*You cannot possibly convince me that literally all prosecutors in an inquistorial system are totally reasonable and free of prejudices, bias, and just plain target-fixation.

I'm totally granting that the official role of prosecutors under the inquisitorial system is officially neutral and that they are well trained, and insulated from the electoral pressures that can make US prosecutors so damn dishonest and unjust. But there is no way to stop individual people or teams from fixating on the desire to "get" certain individuals they "know" are guilty, past the point where it makes sense to do so.

So while this may not routinely be abused, the power of prosecutors to appeal a "not guilty" verdict is certainly a thing that CAN be abused.

[Irbis]

When a trial can potentially be reopened months or years after being 'resolved' in the defendant's favor, it is bound to have what, in the judicial tradition I'm familiar with, is called a "chilling effect." In some cases that's justified, if the appealing prosecution has compelling reason to believe there's been a serious failure of the judicial process.

But it does have real potential for abuse, especially in cases where the prosecution harbors some bias against the defendant*, or where it might be subjected to state influence encouraging prosecution of a designated target (like, possibly, Assange).

That's wrong. Procurator can't wait 'months or years' to reopen trial. You have a period, usually 2 weeks, after which the verdict becomes legal and no one can appeal anymore. You're conflating it with ability to reopen investigation if some new information surfaces, but it must be pretty big change for anyone to bother, and also must happen before statute of limitations kicks in. Which for all but worst crimes is pretty short. So, nope on both counts.

The case of Assange attracted so much interest and outrage specifically because it was not how things were usually handled and smelt of political, not judicial, meddling.

[LaCroix]

*snip*
When a trial can potentially be reopened months or years after being 'resolved' in the defendant's favor, it is bound to have what, in the judicial tradition I'm familiar with, is called a "chilling effect." In some cases that's justified, if the appealing prosecution has compelling reason to believe there's been a serious failure of the judicial process.

*snip*

I'm totally granting that the official role of prosecutors under the inquisitorial system is officially neutral and that they are well trained, and insulated from the electoral pressures that can make US prosecutors so damn dishonest and unjust. But there is no way to stop individual people or teams from fixating on the desire to "get" certain individuals they "know" are guilty, past the point where it makes sense to do so.

So while this may not routinely be abused, the power of prosecutors to appeal a "not guilty" verdict is certainly a thing that CAN be abused.

Point 1 - as I mentioned it above, there is a certain time limit for appealing a decision - it will be set by the judge after the provisional verdict was spoken, and if one side demands time to ponder. Usually two weeks, because the reasons for the appeal have to be put forth in writing. So it's not months or years - it's basically a recess.

Point 2 - this is why we do have the appeals process - the appeal does not automatically result in a retrial - the next level judge will review the trial, and there will only be another trial if that judge comes to the conclusion that the old trial had some errors. So if some prosecutor did have some kind of fixation with a trial, he would not manage to get it redone because he wants to - he needs to have good arguments to have a retrial.

This is why the scientists managed to get a retrial, they had the good argument that they were held to too high standards of professional conduct for their job. That's why the trial was repeated, and they were aquitted. The official, on the other hand, could not prove his case as well as they did, that's why he still got two years in the appeal.

Now, the prosecution has to put forth in writing why they think that the scientists were neglecting their duties in an extent that demands punishment, or why they think the official got away too lightly.

If they bother to do so - they only demanded time to ponder - it's not 100% sure that they will appeal - the need to find a good enough reason.

[Edi]

Even if the state's prosecutor/investigators are presumed to be utterly fair, the fact remains that they are not seriously inconvenienced by pursuing the defendant- they're doing their job by prosecuting them for as long as they see fit to do so. And if they weren't prosecuting/investigating this defendant, they'd be going after someone else. It costs them very little to pursue whatever angles they happen to feel haven't been fully investigated.

But for the defendant this represents a period of months or years in which they must remain very much uncertain whether they will go free or get thrown in prison. Even after the great relief of having the first court ruled in their favor, they find that this is only the beginning and that the prosecution/investigation is going to keep chasing them.

I feel that this is an undue burden to put on innocent persons.

You don't know if they are innocent until they have had a correct trial, which includes the full appeals process. There is typically a set time after a verdict during which it must be appealed. Failure to appeal in time, or a decision not to appeal, validates the verdict and makes it legally enforceable.

These are not difficult concepts, and I see that others have also explained them to you. Again. And again. And again. Which seems to be required every single time that there is discussion related to European court systems on this forum. Are you really that boneheaded or simply unwilling to acknowledge facts that do not dovetail with your own personal opinion formed almost solely on the basis of a fundamentally different legal system?

Doesn't really matter, whichever one of those it is, but the one thing this thread has shown is that in the future we can essentially just ignore anything you post on the subject by invoking your bullheaded willful ignorance.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I don't think you really pay much attention to my opinions before you judge them.

What is being explained to me now, on the whole, is not that which was explained to me before. Unless you think that if I say "X is true because A is true, and because B is true," then refuting A means you automatically get free credit for refuting B.

Some of what is being explained to me is, I grant, repetitive. To me this appears to be because of people who cannot grasp that I already know it, or cannot grasp that someone might object to the way a thing is done, even after they know in broad terms how it is done.

Or, in extreme cases, from people who (appear to) think that their own society is immune from criticism and correct in all details, and that a critical foreigner from a society deemed inferior to theirs is simply being insolent and stupid. I have seen such attitudes expressed by Americans regularly; it is interesting to see them expressed by others.
___________________________

Now, by contrast we have LaCroix, who is actually attempting to present to me reasons why I should not believe what I have so far believed. His first argument appears to be that because appeals must be submitted in two weeks, so the period of uncertainty about whether one will be convicted is short. To which I reply, how long does it typically take the appeals court to process an appeal to completion?

More generally... I'm trying here to lay out my basic idea in a way that people can actually access and engage with if they care to. If they do not care to because I am yet another stupid insolent American, then so be it.

...

I understand that it is European (more specifically, Italian) custom to accept that the same case should sometimes be tried by three or so different courts before any statement can be made about the defendant's guilt or innocence. My concern remains that:

First, this creates a potential opening for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. Even if in theory all Italian prosecutors are honorable men and women, once in a while you're bound to get a guy whose delusions that his target is a Satanist monster will override his judgment.

This has not been really addressed beyond the level of "nuh-uh, that doesn't happen." Now, granted if it really doesn't happen, that means that (for instance) the Italians must be doing something right... specifically, hiring very honest prosecutors. Having honest people in charge can compensate for a constitutional weakness, but cannot simply make it not exist.


Secondly, I am concerned that it creates an opening for political meddling in trials, as is accused of having happened in the Assange case. In such a scenario, the prosecutor (honestly) decides the case is closed, but someone steps in and reopens it on them, because there is an overriding state interest in getting the targeted defendant into a prison.


Thirdly, I consider "you're innocent, wait, no you're not, wait, yes you are" to be a worse outcome, not a co-equal outcome, with "you're guilty, wait, no, you're innocent."

If I didn't care one way or the other I would have less of a problem with the whole thing. But when findings of innocence can readily be made tentative by an outside party, or by screwups on the part of the court, there's a problem.

Because then a verdict of "innocent" does not translate as "you have in fact cleared your name, you are done." It means "maybe you are done unless the judge screwed up in which case you'll spend next year refighting the same battle." This is based purely on my own feelings.


None of these arguments have anything to do with asserting "the US has a better judiciary." That would be a lie. And none of them have, in my opinion, been fully engaged and addressed. At least, not by any of the people who have told me "this is how Europe does it, it's great, it's totally honest, and you wouldn't be talking about this except that you think the US judiciary is the way everyone does it. So shut up."

[Thanas]

You know, I don't think you really pay much attention to my opinions before you judge them.

On the contrary, Edi got you pat to rights.

What is being explained to me now, on the whole, is not that which was explained to me before. Unless you think that if I say "X is true because A is true, and because B is true," then refuting A means you automatically get free credit for refuting B.

THIS IS A FUCKING LIE.

We have been over this before. Remember the knox case? I remember explaining this shit to you in at least two different threads. You did the same "oh it is so terrible a prosecutor can appeal, oh no, the horror" spiel back then.

Thread 1
Thread 2

First, this creates a potential opening for abuse by overzealous prosecutors. Even if in theory all Italian prosecutors are honorable men and women, once in a while you're bound to get a guy whose delusions that his target is a Satanist monster will override his judgment.

Am i talking to a human? Is this the broken-record bot?

This has not been really addressed beyond the level of "nuh-uh, that doesn't happen." Now, granted if it really doesn't happen, that means that (for instance) the Italians must be doing something right... specifically, hiring very honest prosecutors. Having honest people in charge can compensate for a constitutional weakness, but cannot simply make it not exist.

Secondly, I am concerned that it creates an opening for political meddling in trials, as is accused of having happened in the Assange case. In such a scenario, the prosecutor (honestly) decides the case is closed, but someone steps in and reopens it on them, because there is an overriding state interest in getting the targeted defendant into a prison.
Thirdly, I consider "you're innocent, wait, no you're not, wait, yes you are" to be a worse outcome, not a co-equal outcome, with "you're guilty, wait, no, you're innocent."

WHY? Because it is soooooooo tough to wait a few years with no costs at all (and even compensation in some cases) if you are found innocent? Are these adults we are talking about here or pampered children?

Because then a verdict of "innocent" does not translate as "you have in fact cleared your name, you are done." It means "maybe you are done unless the judge screwed up in which case you'll spend next year refighting the same battle." This is based purely on my own feelings.

THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND ITS TRACK RECORD SHITS ON YOUR FEELINGS.

And none of them have, in my opinion, been fully engaged and addressed. At least, not by any of the people who have told me "this is how Europe does it, it's great, it's totally honest, and you wouldn't be talking about this except that you think the US judiciary is the way everyone does it. So shut up."

"OH GREAT, LET ME THROW IN SOME MORE BULLSHIT TO COMPLETE THIS SHIT SUNDAE."

THREAD NUMBER FOUR, HERE WE GO.

[LaCroix]

@ Simon

Duration issue:
An appeal is not a complete retrial - a normal appeal is usually done by a letter from the judge, confirming the original verdict. Only if the judge comes to the conclusion that the evidence presented in the original trial (or if the appealing party presents important new evidence), a retrial will be done.

These retrials are usually quite brief, because most evidence has already been presented. Usually, they don't take more than one or two sessions, which means depending on recess lenght, and time for pondering, an appeal should be done in a couple of weeks. The last time I had legal trouble, the whole issue took 3 months, including one appeal.

Outspending issue /Life lost:
There is no costs at all in a criminal case.
You are usually charged "on the loose". No interruption of your normal life. Your employer will not even know you are charged, and won't even know you are convicted, even, unless you get jailtime. Just the same, presumption of innocence means that you can't be fired for being accused of a crime, and even a conviction might not be a valid reson for termination (means they will pay compensation if they fire you for it), depending on the reason.

If it is a serious offence (e.g. murder)and there is strong evidence against you, you might be incarcerated ahead of trial, but you will get compensation in such cases if you are innocent. Also, European jail is vastly different from US jail. Anyway, innocent people do wait for trial in jail just the same in the US system, and our trials are just as short, once they begin, even including the appeals process (which is part of the trial in our system.)

OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTION...
Again - No issue - to appeal, he needs to PROVE in a LETTER that the whole trial is bullshit, and he is right, because REASONS. If the appeal court judge doesn't accept these reasons, there will be NO appeal. Period. So tell me how an overzealous prosecution with no convincing evidence on his side will manage to appeal a 'not guilty' verdict by sheer will?

[Simon_Jester]

I would like to reply to Thanas in more detail about my past and present opinions, but I leave for work in twenty minutes and I am going to be working more or less continuously from then until about 8:30 p.m. With a similar schedule for the next two days or so. So I'm not betting on being able to find the time in the short run.

LaCroix:

Perhaps my awareness of the European judiciary is colored by the fact that the only cases I ever hear anything about are those which create enough of a splash to end up in the global media. I had somehow gotten the idea that the total period of time between charges and final verdict for a high profile case could stretch out for years... which in this case, it did. Do you expect that any appeal the prosecution makes will be handled quickly?



As to the 'outspending' issue, I haven't even raised it because I know quite well that there are compensation schemes and methods for funding the defense in place in Europe. Now, since criminal defendants are still likely to be placed in jail as far as I can tell, I don't think we can really say that they don't face consequences for the amount of time they spend waiting for trial, and it's not like they can get back a year or two of their lives regardless of how much they're compensated for their time. But I don't actually consider this a key objection. I am more concerned with the idea that a person whose name has been cleared by a lower court may be subjected to three months, six months, a year, or more of reconsideration.

That's not a monetary issue, it's an issue about the nature of guilt, innocence, and crime. I can explain in more detail than this but I am running out of time to write (the stuff below was written earlier), so I must hold off for now.



As to the overzealous prosecution issue, this mainly seems to be an issue if there are procedural problems with the trial, or if there is "wobbly" evidence that it is difficult to say "yes, this was weighted fairly and objectively." The basis of the scientists' first appeal, after all, was that the lower court had unfairly weighed the level of professional duty seismologists could be expected to uphold. In similar cases it would often be easy to create a reasonable argument for what that level is, and why it should be higher or lower.

Basically, the prosecution won't be able to create a problem if literally all evidence is simple and objective and the case is utterly open-and-shut. But if it depends on qualitative judgment to a large degree, then presenting a written argument for why any given judgment is incorrect is... almost certainly possible.

[LaCroix]

This trial was one that was absolutely atypycal, as it was quite heavily influenced by politics - one of the most cronystic political bodies in Europe. After all, the scientists were ordered to hold their declaration 2009 in order to "soothe the population" (that was found out in other trials during 2012)

The first trial lasted from September 2011 until October 2012 - due to the vast amount of paperwork, the deadline for filing an appeal was March 6, 2013.

The appeal ruling was the result of a 30-day trial that started on 10 October in the L’Aquila courtroom, before a three-judge court. Over the course of six hearings before the appellate court in L’Aquila, the scientists’ attorneys argued that no clear causal link had been proved between the meeting and the behaviour of the people of L’Aquila. They also argued that the scientists could not be held accountable for De Bernardinis’s reassuring statements, and that the seismologists’ scientific opinions were ultimately correct.

Appeal started in October and ended in November 2014. So the appeal trial itself took only a month. Which is typical.

The fact that it took the judges 18 months to start the retrial is a side effect form the TONS of paper to sift through, considering related trials that handled the political shenigans related, and most likely handling political pressure from all sides - apart from deciding on the very important legal issue of how accountable scientists should be held.

It should be noted that all this time, the accused were not incarcarated, as far as I know. (As the appeal was in motion.)

I doubt that any appeal from the prosecution would take even nearly that long, as they would need to bring up something that hasn't been considered in all this time, whic is quite unlikely. Unless the prosecution could prove that the three appeal judges were bought and paid for, there probably isn't any ground left for them to stand on.