Amanda knox convicted

[tokugawa]

Do you think that similar issues over forensics and police investigations do not occur in American courts?  They are hardly unique to either the Italian or American jurisprudence systems.

 I have a friend who married an Italian, and lives in Italy half the year. His comments on the Italian court system are...interesting. When I mentioned the conviction of the men for "failing to predict an earthquake", he was not surprised-at all.  His reaction had nothing to do with procedure, forensics, science or anything of that ilk- his comments were on the depth of belief in superstition and witchcraft prevalent in the society. He said for Americans, it is hard to fathom.
 

[MillCreek]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549196/Amanda-Knox-handed-Italy-appeal-fails-claims-Harvard-law-professor-buck-stops-President-Obama.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1204117/amanda-knox-will-be-extradited-by-us

This, and many other articles make the point that relying on double jeopardy to block her extradition is not necessarily something you should bet money on.  It is likely that the language of the actual extradition treaty will control.

Also some interesting comments on how the US seeks to have more people extradited back here than any other country in the world.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I don"t believe she can apply double jeopardy. First trial got her convicted. She appealed got it overturned.  Higher court reversed first appeal. That would fly here and should

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[RocketMan]

Interesting that in the first trial the prosecution claimed Kercher was killed during sex games gone wrong.  During the second trial she was killed because of a disagreement on housekeeping standards.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Interesting that in the first trial the prosecution claimed Kercher was killed during sex games gone wrong.  During the second trial she was killed because of a disagreement on housekeeping standards.

yup

[tokugawa]

I have always liked the provision against double jeopardy, it keeps the buzzards honest. 

 No, it just means they find another crime to try you for, in  another court.  Ask those cops involved in the Rodney King beating trial.
 
 

[MillCreek]

^^^ Exactly.  State charges versus Federal civil rights charges.

[HankB]

Yea, but in our system the govt. gets only one bite at the apple.  It can't keep re-trying defendants until they get a verdict they like in the manner of a throw of dice.

But different jurisdictions can get a crack at the accused - think back to the Rodney King beating; acquitted by a state court, the Feds brought charges. And Eric Holder's justice department is still considering some sort of charges against George Zimmerman, despite his acquittal in Florida court.

[TommyGunn]

No, it just means they find another crime to try you for, in  another court.  Ask those cops involved in the Rodney King beating trial.

That is a good point except:

But different jurisdictions can get a crack at the accused - think back to the Rodney King beating; acquitted by a state court, the Feds brought charges. And Eric Holder's justice department is still considering some sort of charges against George Zimmerman, despite his acquittal in Florida court.

IIRC the Constitution's provision against double jeopardy merely states that the defendant may not be tried more than once for a particular crime.
Thus what the govt. did with accuse in the Rodney King event as HankB pointed out.  That sort of things seems an inventive if cynical "work-around" of the double-jeopardy rule.   They use the Fedgov. to charge some kind of depravation of right charge.   But it STILL remains the same crime.   The Constitution does not state the Fedgove gets an exception from the double jeopardy prohibition for any reason.
Thus, it seems there is a bad defect in our judicial system that needs to be fixed ... somehow.
And Eric Holder going after Zimmerman would only emphasize the problem, despite the fact I think Zimmerman is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

[Azrael256]

I don"t believe she can apply double jeopardy. First trial got her convicted. She appealed got it overturned.  Higher court reversed first appeal. That would fly here and should

N... No, it wouldn't.  That's procedurally impossible here, mostly because that's not what actually happened, but also because our system is more of a pass/fail with verdicts.  

There isn't really a perfect analogue here, but the gist is that Italians get two trials.  The appellate court is actually able to return two basic types of acquittals, which break down further into five actual verdicts.  The point is that the second trial returned a full-on 'Not Guilty' (as opposed to a 'Not Proven') because of insufficiency.  And blisteringly so: "Material nonexistence" of evidence in the first trial, a motive that "while not corroborated by any evidence, is itself far from probable," and ends with "Having excluded the existence of any proof of the guilt of the current defendants..."

In the US, the overturning of a guilty verdict resulting in a retrial is considered a continuation of jeopardy provided that it's a procedural issue (and a few other miscellaneous things).  A completed trial with a conviction that is overturned on grounds of sufficiency cannot be retried.  See Burks v. US.

So it's that second trial that was overturned.  The second verdict is only supposed to be overturned on some kind of issue with procedure or the application of the law.  There is allegedly much fishiness in how this appeal went.  It has nothing to do with the evidence of the original trial, but with the trial of Guede determining that there were additional perpetrators.  Let me say that again: The opinion of the court in a separate trial of another person was accepted as evidence in an appeal that is not supposed to be about evidence.  That a third court is able to render an opinion in a criminal trial at all, much less have it accepted as "fact" in another trial is a complete joke.

The second trial was re-tried, and it returned a conviction.  That can be appealed just like the last second trial.

Also, they don't have juries.  Not like we do, anyway.  It's kind of an odd system.

So yeah, I wouldn't give the Manson, either.

[Hawkmoon]

And now the result of the appeal of the appeal will be appealed.

Quite a system. 

[sumpnz]

And now the result of the appeal of the appeal will be appealed.

Quite a system. 

Sir Frank Williams, Patrick Head and Adrian Newey spent over a DECADE fighting off a murder charge over the death Ayrton Senna.  They were, IIRC, acquitted at the original trial.  Prosecution appealed, and appealed, and appealed.  I know that in 2004 (the 10 year mark) it was still ongoing.  I think I remember hearing about it still going on ca. 2008. 

That was an accident.  There's supposition that the design was faulty, or the construction of the steering column was botched.  Either way, it's a race car and race cars are always prototypes and also built to the lightest possible weight.  That makes them inherently more likely to fail and cause an accident.  But the accident has never been proven to be caused by a steering column failure.  And yet they wouldn't let it go.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Sir Frank Williams, Patrick Head and Adrian Newey spent over a DECADE fighting off a murder charge over the death Ayrton Senna.  They were, IIRC, acquitted at the original trial.  Prosecution appealed, and appealed, and appealed.  I know that in 2004 (the 10 year mark) it was still ongoing.  I think I remember hearing about it still going on ca. 2008. 

That was an accident.  There's supposition that the design was faulty, or the construction of the steering column was botched.  Either way, it's a race car and race cars are always prototypes and also built to the lightest possible weight.  That makes them inherently more likely to fail and cause an accident.  But the accident has never been proven to be caused by a steering column failure.  And yet they wouldn't let it go.

didn't the prosecute the owners of a track when fans were hurt too?

[tokugawa]

The ability of a prosecutor to refile charges after a dismissal is also , IMO ,a work-around of the double jeopardy rules- I have a friend who had multiple dismissals - (four, IIRC) of his charges, and 13 years elapsed, before the county finally gave up - this time the county asked for a dismissal as their witness was unavailable-and my friend asked for a dismissal "with prejudice", the judge granted it.

 13 years fighting it- he was his own lawyer. No way he could have done that with hired help.
 victimless crime- but he is a white Christian gun owning middle class male in a very blue county and the "prosecuter" (spelling correct)  had a vendetta going.

[230RN]

In general, I avoid pop culture mediagasms and wasn't going to read this thread.

But I got myself ensnared in it and it's actually interesting, like, justice-wise, y' know?  See what I'm sayin'?

Hell, it even prompted cassandra and sara's daddy to locate the shift key. :)

TommyGunn remarked,

I have always liked the provision against double jeopardy, it keeps the buzzards honest.  They get their one bite.  They don't get to make some poor shlub into a whipping boy when their egos get bruised by a "not guilty" verdict and thus keep after the defendant like a Lt. Gerard after a Dr. Kimble.

Me, too.  Past history hath shewn many instances where "sorcerers" and "witches" and "traitors" et cetera have been retried until guilty.  Hell, if that ugly old crone doesn't have the Devil's Mark on her, let's see if she can float in the river.  That ought to prove our case.  Or put her on the rack until she 'fesses up.

I just wish we could apply the same double jeopardy reasoning to Acts of Legislatures somehow.  Once rejected, a potential law (or its concept) should be "juris non grata"  for a while.  Beats the coin-tossing in successive legislative sessions.

(I just made up that "juris non grata" phrase.  Just this very minute.)

Terry

[sumpnz]

didn't the prosecute the owners of a track when fans were hurt too?

Probably.  But what's that got to do with the Senna trials?  I looked it up.  Williams, Head and Newey along with about 4 other team members were acquitted at the first trial.  They appealed the acquittal, and appealed all rulings in the favor of the F1 team members/owners.  Eventually they got a "conviction" for manslaughter (or the equivalent charge, I think it was called culpable homicide) against Patrick Head.  But that came over 13 years after Senna died, and the statute of limitations (surprised they didn't appeal that) came around 6 years before that, so they couldn't impose the jail sentence they were after on Head.

Even if the steering column had failed, and even if that was the proximate cause of the accident that killed Senna, and if that failure was due to poor design and/or workmanship such that the failure was foreseeable it would still be a stretch in any reasonable person's mind to call that manslaughter, never mind murder.  A tort action by Senna (had he lived) or his heirs would maybe be called for.  But he was probably heavily involved in the modifications, regardless he knew what was done, and raced that car anyway. 

[Tallpine]

I just wish we could apply the same double jeopardy reasoning to Acts of Legislatures somehow.  Once rejected, a potential law (or its concept) should be "juris non grata"  for a while.  Beats the coin-tossing in successive legislative sessions.

But what if it is a "law" that increases liberty 

For instance, establishing shall issue CCW or better yet, "consitutional carry" ?

Could you only bring up a bill once that repeals an existing law? 

[230RN]

^ Good point.  My anger at the constant similar attempts to infringe blinded me there for a minute.

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This article is by a woman who spent two years in Perugia and researched the case exhaustively. Makes for interesting reading, and doesn't lend a lot of credence to the prosecution theory-du-jour (regardless of which jour)/

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This article is by a woman who spent two years in Perugia and researched the case exhaustively. Makes for interesting reading, and doesn't lend a lot of credence to the prosecution theory-du-jour (regardless of which jour)/

her first demonstrable lie is in paragraph 6  i stopped then  does she get better at it in the rest of her book promotion?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This guy sees her a lil different.  and he knew her.  i was gonna say "he was there" but thats also a proven lie as well

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047234/Amanda-Knox-fantastic-actress-says-Patrick-Lumumba-accused-murder.html

[Azrael256]

her first demonstrable lie is in paragraph 6  i stopped then  does she get better at it in the rest of her book promotion?

ID the "lie" and refute it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

no dna evidence

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Double_DNA_Knife

[Azrael256]

no dna evidence

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Double_DNA_Knife

Knox's DNA found on the handle of a knife in her own house.  Should I call the police to come get you now, or will you be taking them your knives to test for your own DNA, murderer?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

tldr?  try again or ask for help

 If the DNA Profile on the Knife Matches the Victim Then What Is the Issue?

That the profile found on the knife recovered from Sollecito's apartment is a match to Meredith was never in question. The experts for both sides stipulated to the fact that those two profiles match. Conti and Vecchiotti, although they reveal their bias in attempting to avoid directly answering the question, eventually admit that the DNA profile recovered from the knife is a match to Meredith Kercher. Their criticism with respect to the knife DNA is that they feel Stefanoni ought not to have tested it at all, but since it was tested and a profile obtained this result should nevertheless be excluded because the small size of the sample precluded dividing it first for two separate amplifications. Specifically there is a minor objection that the lack of genetic material did not allow for repeated testing and a more significant objection that because the quantity of DNA was so small it might have arrived on the knife by some innocent means.