Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

There's no double jeopardy clause in Italy Follow

#1 Mar 26 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
642 posts
Saw this and though I didn't really follow the original case that closely (by watching the news, I got the cliff's notes), I found it interesting that there's no protection in Italy for being tried for the same crime twice.

Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher murder

Amanda Knox was ordered to stand trial again for the murder of her roommate by Italy's top criminal court on Tuesday, but there appeared to be little the country could do to force her to return for the new hearings.

The Court of Cassation, Italy's final court of appeal, overturned the acquittals of both Knox and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito over the 2007 killing of British student Meredith Kercher.

In a statement responding to the decision, Knox slammed prosecutors and vowed to fight on.

"It was painful to receive the news that the Italian Supreme Court decided to send my case back for revision when the prosecution's theory of my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair," said Knox, who is now aged 25 and living in the Seattle area.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17468473-italy-court-amanda-knox-to-be-retried-for-meredith-kercher-murder?lite

For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Think about how different our legal system would be without that clause. Would OJs trial have been sent back? Casey Anthony's?

Judging from what I've read, the Italian courts are a huge ************ but this must make things even more cumbersome.

____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#2 Mar 26 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
******
44,314 posts
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 26 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?


Um... That they don't have the same thing? Just spitballin' here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Mar 26 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?


If you read the post, We don't have DJ, they allow it, think about how we would be different if we did.

Edited, Mar 26th 2013 7:00pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#5 Mar 26 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?
Um... That they don't have the same thing? Just spitballin' here.
Again, that's great. You guys know how Wikipedia works. What does it have to do with Italy?
Timelordwho wrote:
think about how we would be different if we did.
We'd be different. Great. Wonderful thread. Thread concluded.

Edited, Mar 26th 2013 7:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#6 Mar 26 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
I wish we allocated more to our public school systems.


Edited, Mar 26th 2013 7:22pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#7 Mar 26 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?
Um... That they don't have the same thing? Just spitballin' here.
Again, that's great. You guys know how Wikipedia works. What does it have to do with Italy?


Um... That they don't have the same thing? Just spitballin' here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Mar 26 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Grady wrote:
For reference here's the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That's great. What does it have to do with Italy?

Possibly quite a bit when Italy asks for extradition.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 26 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

Possibly quite a bit when Italy asks for extradition.


Probably not. Double jeopardy almost never applies in cases overturned on appeal, they get retried all the time. Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned. There's also the niggling detail that all available evidence indicates that she very likely murdered someone which would make refusing to extradite her a little sticky. She is a pretty white lady that people like, though, and the value of that to grant exceptions to law in the US shouldn't be underestimated.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Mar 26 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Probably not. Double jeopardy almost never applies in cases overturned on appeal, they get retried all the time. Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Does that make me a genius as well, since I saw the same issue Smash saw?

I'm going with yes, regardless of the answer.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#11 Mar 26 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
They should keep her here in the US, on the condition that she signs a deal with Larry Flynt.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#12 Mar 26 2013 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
She ****** up in Italy. Sign her to do remakes of Lucio Fulci movies.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Mar 26 2013 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Possibly quite a bit when Italy asks for extradition.

Probably not.

No idea here. I was just going for the obvious reason why two sets of rules in two different nations might matter. My own interest and knowledge of the case goes as far as "Pretty girl got in trouble and *** was involved so it was news".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Mar 27 2013 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Probably not. Double jeopardy almost never applies in cases overturned on appeal, they get retried all the time. Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Does that make me a genius as well, since I saw the same issue Smash saw?

I'm going with yes, regardless of the answer.
The Canadian Genius is just a myth.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#15 Mar 27 2013 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
[b]
She is a pretty white lady that people like, though, and the value of that to grant exceptions to law in the US shouldn't be underestimated.
Just gauging by the responses here - this will weigh heavy in any US judicial decision.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#16 Mar 27 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Pretty girl got in trouble and *** was involved so it was news".
Something about satanism, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Mar 27 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Just gauging by the responses here - this will weigh heavy in any US judicial decision.

Probably will, in all seriousness. Plus, what's Italy going to do if the US refuses, cut off our supply of bathtub maddonas?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Mar 27 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Plus, what's Italy going to do if the US refuses, cut off our supply of bathtub maddonas?


What about our salad dressing and meatballs... where will we go to get those?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Mar 27 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
France and Sweden?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 Mar 27 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,357 posts
Pretty sure that one of the Thousand Islands has someone that can make meatballs on it.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#21 Mar 27 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Just gauging by the responses here - this will weigh heavy in any US judicial decision.

Probably will, in all seriousness. Plus, what's Italy going to do if the US refuses, cut off our supply of bathtub maddonas?
No more Parmesan for you.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#22 Mar 27 2013 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.


Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case, it doesn't sound all that cut and dry.

I didn't really follow the case, nor do I give 2 ***** about Itally, but if she was acquitted, then it should stand. Prosecutors/juries do occasionally make mistakes; they have to live with it here, so I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#23 Mar 27 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.


Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case, it doesn't sound all that cut and dry.

I didn't really follow the case, nor do I give 2 @#%^s about Itally, but if she was acquitted, then it should stand. Prosecutors/juries do occasionally make mistakes; they have to live with it here, so I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.

The original verdict was guilty.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#24 Mar 27 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about trivially fact checked things?

Seems like it would be exhausting.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 Mar 27 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.


Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case, it doesn't sound all that cut and dry.

I didn't really follow the case, nor do I give 2 @#%^s about Itally, but if she was acquitted, then it should stand. Prosecutors/juries do occasionally make mistakes; they have to live with it here, so I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.

The original verdict was guilty.


I'm not interested in debating the details of Italian law any further than this, but according to wikipedia (lolwiki):

Quote:
Under Italian law two appeals are permitted to defendants, during which there is a presumption of innocence until a final verdict is entered.[161] Their first appeal began in November 2010 and was presided over by Judges Claudio Pratillo Hellmann and Massimo Zanetti. The court ordered a review of the contested DNA evidence by independent forensic DNA experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome's Sapienza University. They submitted a 145-page report that noted numerous basic errors in the gathering and analysis of the evidence, further asserting that a police forensic scientist had given evidence in court that was not supported by her laboratory work.[162] In testimony to the appeal, Professor Conti said that a police video showed that, when a vital piece of evidence was gathered, it was handled with a glove that was visibly dirty.[163][164] During cross-examination Vecchiotti was asked by prosecutor Comodi if a gap of several days between analysing samples was enough to remove the possibility of cross-contamination in the laboratory. "They're sufficient if that's the way things went," replied Vecchiotti.[165]
On 3 October 2011, the court overturned Knox's and Sollecito's convictions on charges of complicity in murder, sexual assault, illegally carrying a knife and staging a break-in. The conviction of Knox on a charge of slander was upheld and the original one-year sentence was increased to three years and eleven days imprisonment.[166][167][168]


/shrug
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#26 Mar 27 2013 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.
Because you're subject to local laws, not your nationality's?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#27 Mar 27 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.
Because you're subject to local laws, not your nationality's?


Yes and no, right? I doubt that we make a habit of sending women back to the Middle East to get honor killed for being raped.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#28 Mar 27 2013 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I doubt that we make a habit of sending women back to the Middle East to get honor killed for being raped.
We do make a pretty big stink when someone murders someone on our soil about getting them back.

There's also no extradition treaty with the United Arab Nations.

Edited, Mar 27th 2013 10:58am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Mar 27 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
642 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.
Because you're subject to local laws, not your nationality's?


Not always though. There are any number of cases where countries have not extradited to other countries that have the death penalty, for example. Including Italy: Indeed, the Italian Constitutional Court has gone one step further, refusing to extradite suspects even in the face of assurances. In the case of Pietro Venezia, the Italian Constitutional Court held that under no circumstances would Italy extradite an individual to a country where the death penalty existed, despite the United States' assurances. Venezia v. Ministero di Grazia & Giustizia, Corte coste, 27 June 1996, 79 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 815 (1996).



Edited, Mar 27th 2013 10:58am by Grady
____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#30 Mar 27 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, as Grady said, there's numerous countries that won't extradite to the US when there's a chance at a capital punishment sentence. I won't say that has bearing on the US extraditing on a double jeopardy style case, just that nations making calls on what sort of trials they'll subject their citizens to isn't anything new.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Mar 27 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I won't say that has bearing on the US extraditing on a double jeopardy style case,
That's kind of my point. As fun as people seem to have with finding exception to the rule that don't actually apply to the case at hand, this is the brunt of the case. I'm sure they'll fight tooth and nail citing double jeopardy, and even sink some tax dollars into it, but I doubt it'll hold much water and just delay the inevitable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Mar 27 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.


Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case, it doesn't sound all that cut and dry.

I didn't really follow the case, nor do I give 2 @#%^s about Itally, but if she was acquitted, then it should stand. Prosecutors/juries do occasionally make mistakes; they have to live with it here, so I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.

The original verdict was guilty.


I'm not interested in debating the details of Italian law any further than this, but according to wikipedia (lolwiki):

Quote:
Under Italian law two appeals are permitted to defendants, during which there is a presumption of innocence until a final verdict is entered.[161] Their first appeal began in November 2010 and was presided over by Judges Claudio Pratillo Hellmann and Massimo Zanetti. The court ordered a review of the contested DNA evidence by independent forensic DNA experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome's Sapienza University. They submitted a 145-page report that noted numerous basic errors in the gathering and analysis of the evidence, further asserting that a police forensic scientist had given evidence in court that was not supported by her laboratory work.[162] In testimony to the appeal, Professor Conti said that a police video showed that, when a vital piece of evidence was gathered, it was handled with a glove that was visibly dirty.[163][164] During cross-examination Vecchiotti was asked by prosecutor Comodi if a gap of several days between analysing samples was enough to remove the possibility of cross-contamination in the laboratory. "They're sufficient if that's the way things went," replied Vecchiotti.[165]
On 3 October 2011, the court overturned Knox's and Sollecito's convictions on charges of complicity in murder, sexual assault, illegally carrying a knife and staging a break-in. The conviction of Knox on a charge of slander was upheld and the original one-year sentence was increased to three years and eleven days imprisonment.[166][167][168]


/shrug


I'm not sure I understand the point of your post and bolded material. Seems to me like it's just proof that you are wrong, but since you didn't comment along with the post, I can't tell if you are trying to provide evidence to support your original comments and failing to do so?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#33 Mar 27 2013 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
642 posts
Joph,

I agree with you, I don't know if they'll be any credence to it, but I was replying more to the local laws > your countries laws argument in the lower part of the thread.

Looking at it from a U.S. perspective, I don't think she would be retried (even though there are circumstances where double jeopardy is allowed) because the case was thrown out due to evidential issues by the appellate court. If it were a directed verdict by the judge that overruled the jury in the case, it could be retried here, for example.

____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#34 Mar 27 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Grady wrote:
Looking at it from a U.S. perspective, I don't think she would be retried (even though there are circumstances where double jeopardy is allowed) because the case was thrown out due to evidential issues by the appellate court.
If new evidence were found it would.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Mar 27 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
TirithRR wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Double jeopardy applies when someone is acquitted, not at all the same as a verdict being overturned.


Well, considering that original verdict was acquittal in this case, it doesn't sound all that cut and dry.

I didn't really follow the case, nor do I give 2 @#%^s about Itally, but if she was acquitted, then it should stand. Prosecutors/juries do occasionally make mistakes; they have to live with it here, so I really don't see any value in sending an American citizen back to another country to have that same protection denied to them.

The original verdict was guilty.


I'm not interested in debating the details of Italian law any further than this, but according to wikipedia (lolwiki):

Quote:
Under Italian law two appeals are permitted to defendants, during which there is a presumption of innocence until a final verdict is entered.[161] Their first appeal began in November 2010 and was presided over by Judges Claudio Pratillo Hellmann and Massimo Zanetti. The court ordered a review of the contested DNA evidence by independent forensic DNA experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome's Sapienza University. They submitted a 145-page report that noted numerous basic errors in the gathering and analysis of the evidence, further asserting that a police forensic scientist had given evidence in court that was not supported by her laboratory work.[162] In testimony to the appeal, Professor Conti said that a police video showed that, when a vital piece of evidence was gathered, it was handled with a glove that was visibly dirty.[163][164] During cross-examination Vecchiotti was asked by prosecutor Comodi if a gap of several days between analysing samples was enough to remove the possibility of cross-contamination in the laboratory. "They're sufficient if that's the way things went," replied Vecchiotti.[165]
On 3 October 2011, the court overturned Knox's and Sollecito's convictions on charges of complicity in murder, sexual assault, illegally carrying a knife and staging a break-in. The conviction of Knox on a charge of slander was upheld and the original one-year sentence was increased to three years and eleven days imprisonment.[166][167][168]


/shrug


I'm not sure I understand the point of your post and bolded material. Seems to me like it's just proof that you are wrong, but since you didn't comment along with the post, I can't tell if you are trying to provide evidence to support your original comments and failing to do so?

Maybe the original verdict was guilty, but even then, under Italian law (apparently), if an appeal is filed, the suspect is considered innocent until such time that the verdict is upheld, which it was not. The end result was an acquittal. As I said, beyond that, I don't really care to debate the merit of the retrial any further. Italy may have the right to do so, but I suspect the U.S. may not extradite her for it.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#36 Mar 27 2013 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Quote:
Italian law cannot compel Knox to return to Italy and she could be tried in absentia.


So no worries about extradition?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Mar 27 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Maybe the original verdict was guilty, but even then, under Italian law (apparently), if an appeal is filed, the suspect is considered innocent until such time that the verdict is upheld, which it was not. The end result was an acquittal.

Sure. No one ever argued that. It also has no bearing on the US understanding of double jeopardy. Not sure why you're posting something every is already aware of.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Mar 27 2013 at 10:20 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Well I did say I was bowing out of the discussion, but Tirith questioned my post, so I answered him. Is it that difficult to figure out?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#39 Mar 27 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Well I did say I was bowing out of the discussion, but Tirith questioned my post, so I answered him. Is it that difficult to figure out?

Your post, no. Your motivation, yes, that remains a mystery to us all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Mar 27 2013 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Her origional plea agreement wasn't entered in the form of a question, so the judges couldn't accept it.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#41 Mar 28 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
That's what you get for going against The Trebeck.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Mar 28 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
That's what you get for going against The Trebeck.

It's been rumored (or so says my husband) that Trebeck will soon be replaced as Jeopardy host by Matt Lauer.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#43 Mar 28 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Ever since his moustache abandoned him, The Trebeck hasn't had the same power as he used to. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Mar 28 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
He hasn't been the same ever since Adam West got him to say Kebert Xela.

I don't think Alex Trebek ever watched that episode of Family Guy.


Edited, Mar 28th 2013 4:32pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#45 Mar 29 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Maybe the original verdict was guilty, but even then, under Italian law (apparently), if an appeal is filed, the suspect is considered innocent until such time that the verdict is upheld, which it was not. The end result was an acquittal.

Sure. No one ever argued that. It also has no bearing on the US understanding of double jeopardy. Not sure why you're posting something every is already aware of.


I'll fully acknowledge that I've paid virtually zero attention to the details of this case, but in our system you're allowed to appeal a guilty outcome, but once there's a dining of innocent, it's done. The state doesn't get to keep trying to convict you. That's the basic, broad application of the "no double jeopardy" principle in a nutshell. This gets tricky if, for example, a case is dismissed for some reason and a verdict is never reached. Technically, you weren't tried in that case, and the state can try you in the future if new evidence comes up.

I'm not sure in this case if the original guilty verdict being overturned means "innocent" or "dismissed". And honestly, it's not super high on my list of things to investigate. So basically just posting to post. Welcome to the Asylum!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Mar 29 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
It probably hasn't come up in Law & Order, so it's understandable for you to not know, but you can be tried again after being found innocent if new evidence is unearthed, not just for dismissed or verdictless charges. If the new evidence doesn't fulfill the necessary requirements you can counter-sue for harassment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Mar 29 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It probably hasn't come up in Law & Order, so it's understandable for you to not know, but you can be tried again after being found innocent if new evidence is unearthed, not just for dismissed or verdictless charges. If the new evidence doesn't fulfill the necessary requirements you can counter-sue for harassment.


Sounds like something you saw on an episode of Law & Order to me. See, and now you made me do some research. First off, no you can't be retried if new evidence is found *if* you were acquitted. If the trial was dismissed during pre-trial for lack of evidence *then* finding new evidence will allow for a trial to go forward. That doesn't violate double jeopardy because you were never subjected to a trial in the first case. But if you went through a trial and were acquitted, you can't be retried period. Even if the next day the key witness says "I lied. He really did do it". Doesn't matter at that point.


What is applicable here though is that if a judge overrules a jury conviction then the state may appeal that overruling without violating the double jeopardy principle. I believe that applies more directly to the case in question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Mar 29 2013 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Even if the next day the key witness says "I lied. He really did do it". Doesn't matter at that point.
Witness tampering.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Mar 29 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even if the next day the key witness says "I lied. He really did do it". Doesn't matter at that point.
Witness tampering.


Which assumes there was tampering and not just "new evidence" as you claimed. Um... and it's also not grounds to violate double jeopardy either. Only if the judge was tampered with can there be a cause to retry (even jury tampering isn't considered sufficient cause). At least that's what 5 minutes on google has taught me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Mar 29 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which assumes there was tampering and not just "new evidence" as you claimed
Well, if you want to play semantics, if witness tampering is proven then the previous ruling can be invalidated.
gbaji wrote:
At least that's what 5 minutes on google has taught me.
More research than you tend to do for most of your arguments, but not really any more accurate.

I think I know where your confusion is, and it is my fault. I should have pointed out that they can be retried under different charges, and not just left it as retried.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Mar 29 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which assumes there was tampering and not just "new evidence" as you claimed
Well, if you want to play semantics, if witness tampering is proven then the previous ruling can be invalidated.


Only if the verdict was guilty. Not the other way around. Even lolwiki suggests that you're wrong:

Quote:
This principle does not prevent the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismiss[51] or other non-merits dismissal,[52] or a directed verdict after a jury conviction,[53] nor does it prevent the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute.[54] Nor does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[55] including habeas,[56] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[57] on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated." There may also be an exception for judicial bribery,[58] but not jury bribery.


If jury tampering isn't sufficient cause for retrying an acquittal, I'd be shocked if witness tampering would be. The general trend is that you have the evidence you have, the witnesses you have, and the jury you have. If those result in acquittal, it's done.

The followup wiki sheds even more light (and addresses this specific case I believe):

Quote:
Insufficiency

Retrial is not possible if the verdict is overturned on the grounds of evidentiary insufficiency, rather than on the grounds of procedural faults. As noted above, if the trial court made a determination of evidentiary insufficiency, the determination would constitute a final acquittal; in Burks v. United States 437 U.S. 1, (1978), the Court held that "it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient."[9]


So it appears to directly state that in the US, this case could not be subject to retrial. So we're kinda back to Italy allowing a case of double jeopardy that our own laws would not allow.

Quote:
I think I know where your confusion is, and it is my fault. I should have pointed out that they can be retried under different charges, and not just left it as retried.


Huh? Given that no one's even broached the subject (and it's not applicable here), I'm going to go with you realizing you're wrong and are just pulling stuff out of your ***.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CST
Jophiel, Omegavegeta, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (52)