Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

There's no double jeopardy clause in Italy Follow

#52 Mar 29 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
So we're kinda back to Italy allowing a case of double jeopardy that our own laws would not allow.

Nope. I'm not going to get into the specifics, because I'm not interested in your 9 pages of backpedaling, but this case would be eligible to be retried in the US in Federal court and in most states as well, where criminal procedure might differ slightly from the federal standard.
____________________________
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.

#53 Mar 29 2013 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So we're kinda back to Italy allowing a case of double jeopardy that our own laws would not allow.

Nope. I'm not going to get into the specifics, because I'm not interested in your 9 pages of backpedaling, but this case would be eligible to be retried in the US in Federal court and in most states as well, where criminal procedure might differ slightly from the federal standard.


Well, ok then. I mean, if we're not going to go into specifics. Like I said, I've only peripherally paid any attention to this case, so my only direct knowledge is that the guilty verdict was overturned because of evidentiary problems, which would seem to be one of the direct cases where in the US the acquittal could not be retried. Wiki would not steer me wrong! Smiley: clown
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Mar 29 2013 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,247 posts
A voided conviction is not the same as an acquittal.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#55 Mar 29 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Samira wrote:
A voided conviction is not the same as an acquittal.


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]


My understanding is that the court made a determination on appeal (review?) that the evidence was not handled properly, threw out that evidence, and then made a determination that the evidence remaining was not sufficient for the case to have even been tried. In this US, this does result in a "final acquittal" and cannot be retried, even if new evidence comes along later. If there was new evidence, the prosecution had the opportunity to file motion to introduce it during the appeal itself, just as it did during the original trial.


This is why DAs will make sure their evidence (and evidence chain) is rock solid prior to going to trial. They're better off dropping charges and waiting until they've got sufficient evidence to go to trial and get a conviction, then to go to trial with shaky evidence, get a conviction, but then have it thrown out later on appeal. Because in the former, you can try the case when/if new evidence appears (subject to statutory limitations of course), whereas in the latter, you're done. You screwed up. Once acquitted, that's the ball game with very very few exceptions.

Edited, Mar 29th 2013 5:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Mar 29 2013 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,247 posts
Not interested in researching Italian law, but I suspect there may be a difference.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#57 Mar 29 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Samira wrote:
Not interested in researching Italian law, but I suspect there may be a difference.


Isn't the fact that there are differences between Italian and US law the entire point of the thread? I was responding to people claiming that she'd be subject to retrial in the US as well, so it really wasn't an issue. I don't think anyone was talking about Italian law except in the context of whether or how it was different than US law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Mar 29 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

My understanding is that the court made a determination on appeal (review?) that the evidence was not handled properly, threw out that evidence, and then made a determination that the evidence remaining was not sufficient for the case to have even been tried. In this US this,


Virtually never happens. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Law isn't written in layman's terms. Bad chain of custody, witnesses lying, cops lying, none of things usually are enough to determine there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case. That's what this refers to, the equivalent of ex facto dismissal with prejudice *by the appellate court*. This almost never happens. What usually happens is a successful procedural issue appeal and the prosecuting body dismisses. What frequently happens is they re-try the case. Ernesto Miranda (of Miranda V Arizona, who it turns out had the right to remain silent) was re-tried for example. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison because, apparently there was enough evidence without his confession to convict. It's the example most commonly used in law schools to combat the perception that double jeopardy applies in cases overturned for bad evidence on appeal. Essentially EVERY SHRED of evidence, so much that you can't indict (which isn't very hard) has to be thrown out.
____________________________
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.

#59 Mar 29 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
This is why DAs will make sure their evidence (and evidence chain) is rock solid prior to going to trial. They're better off dropping charges and waiting until they've got sufficient evidence to go to trial and get a conviction, then to go to trial with shaky evidence, get a conviction, but then have it thrown out later on appeal

Nah, that's TV law. DAs want the best case possible because they like to win and don't want to risk an acquittal *at trial*. They largely don't care about appeals. Everyone appeals, they're usually handled by specialists, they're rarely successful.
____________________________
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.

#60 Apr 01 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

My understanding is that the court made a determination on appeal (review?) that the evidence was not handled properly, threw out that evidence, and then made a determination that the evidence remaining was not sufficient for the case to have even been tried. In this US this,


Virtually never happens. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Law isn't written in layman's terms. Bad chain of custody, witnesses lying, cops lying, none of things usually are enough to determine there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case. That's what this refers to, the equivalent of ex facto dismissal with prejudice *by the appellate court*. This almost never happens. What usually happens is a successful procedural issue appeal and the prosecuting body dismisses. What frequently happens is they re-try the case. Ernesto Miranda (of Miranda V Arizona, who it turns out had the right to remain silent) was re-tried for example. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison because, apparently there was enough evidence without his confession to convict. It's the example most commonly used in law schools to combat the perception that double jeopardy applies in cases overturned for bad evidence on appeal. Essentially EVERY SHRED of evidence, so much that you can't indict (which isn't very hard) has to be thrown out.


Um... That's great Smash. But I was saying that *if* a case in the US were overturned for the reasons stated in this case, it would not be subject to re-trial. And before you say it, yes, I get that these are different systems, yadda yadda. But the fact that they are different is precisely the point here.

Do I also get to point out that in the US, it's unlikely she would have been convicted in the first place? So in Italy, we have easier convictions, but easier appeals, combined with broader potential re-trial. Whatever. Apples and oranges if you like. The fact that the US system would likely have resulted in a different path, with different rulings along the way, does not change the fact that if the same path with the same rulings were to occur, this case would not be subject to re-trial in the US. That's all I was saying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Apr 01 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,938 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do I also get to point out that in the US, it's unlikely she would have been convicted in the first place?


Cause she's a pretty white girl?

Gotta play the race (and ***) card, right?


Edited, Apr 1st 2013 5:10pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#62 Apr 01 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do I also get to point out that in the US, it's unlikely she would have been convicted in the first place?


Cause she's a pretty white girl?

Gotta play the race (and ***) card, right?


If that's what floats your boat. It's also that other nations have somewhat different approaches to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit. While I'm no expert on Italian law specifically, I'm aware that this sometimes manifests as a lower standard to bring cases to trial and to get convictions, but with a broader and more automatic appeals process. It's more like the initial trial is equivalent a preliminary trial in the US, with the combination of that and the first round of appeal being more like the complete trial process we use in the US. So cases which would likely result in dismissal or acquittal in the US, will initially result in a finding of guilty, but then be overturned shortly thereafter. Obviously, in such a system the whole "can't retry on an overturn" can't be as rigorous as in the US (or we could argue that the US has a more rigorous trial process *because* of our double jeopardy rules).


End result is that we can't really apply our own standards to just one part of their legal system. Cause the meaning of each component is slightly different than the same component in the US. Hopefully, that made sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Apr 01 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Bagel socks.
____________________________
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.
#64 Apr 01 2013 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Bagel socks.


Socks Bagel!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Apr 01 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,938 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Bagel socks.


Socks Bagel!


Bocks Sagel
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#66 Apr 01 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Um... That's great Smash. But I was saying that *if* a case in the US were overturned for the reasons stated in this case, it would not be subject to re-trial.

It would be, without question. You apparently didn't understand anything I posted, which was predictable. Remember the part where I said I wasn't going to bother? I accidentally strayed from that mostly for non Gbaji people's benefit. We have completed our interaction on this subject. Fee free to continue with others.

I'm no expert on Italian law

Not sure what the word "Italian" adds to this known fact?

Edited, Apr 1st 2013 8:26pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
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.

#67 Apr 02 2013 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
******
43,836 posts
It's like MadLibs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Apr 02 2013 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,029 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


Not sure what the word "Italian" adds to this known fact?
A bit of an olive-oily herbed zing.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#69 Apr 02 2013 at 1:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... That's great Smash. But I was saying that *if* a case in the US were overturned for the reasons stated in this case, it would not be subject to re-trial.

It would be, without question.


Not if it was overturned "for the reasons stated in the case". Not sure how much more clearly I can state that. The sticking point which you cant seem to get past is that in the US it would have been overturned for a different stated reason, specifically so as to allow for a retrial. I've never disagreed with that fact.

Quote:
You apparently didn't understand anything I posted, which was predictable.


Yeah, no. I understood perfectly. We're not talking rocket science here.

Quote:
Remember the part where I said I wasn't going to bother? I accidentally strayed from that mostly for non Gbaji people's benefit. We have completed our interaction on this subject. Fee free to continue with others.


You often say this, but like a moth to a flame...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Apr 03 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
You often say this

True, and equally often I stop discussing the topic in question with the poster in question. As I have here. Your ego doesn't really concern me, your crazy interpretation of law occasionally does. You suffer from an ailment fairly common to your profession, you assume your ability to successfully read an operating manual translates into some sort of pervasive general wisdom. It does not. Law is a continuum of adversarial decision making based tangentially at best on codified statues. Assuming one can read the statue and then "understand" the state and practice of the law is idiotic. Of course we're speaking of a person who makes similar claims of subjects where he hasn't even read the subject matter, let alone the current state of debate. Still, it's good to remind people of the "IT guy" fallacy.
____________________________
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.

#71 Apr 03 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
Still, it's good to remind people of the "IT guy" fallacy.


Do not bash the profession please Smiley: glare Many people work in IT and are not like Gbaji Smiley: tongue

As for the thread. If I were Italian I'd be more than a little embarrassed at the international attention granted by this entire escapade. Whatever happens now, the verdict will be suspect and I would be shocked if Knox was successfully convicted. Saying that, if I were her, I would not fly back there.
#72 Apr 03 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
JennockFV wrote:
As for the thread. If I were Italian I'd be more than a little embarrassed at the international attention granted by this entire escapade.
I don't think they care. They keep voting for Berlusconi even if he's changed laws to avoid prosecution and is on trial for having *** with a 17 year old (and paying her for it? I can't remember). And that's even aside from all the rumored corruption and connections to the mafia.
____________________________
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.
#73 Apr 03 2013 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
JennockFV wrote:
As for the thread. If I were Italian I'd be more than a little embarrassed at the international attention granted by this entire escapade.
I don't think they care. They keep voting for Berlusconi even if he's changed laws to avoid prosecution and is on trial for having *** with a 17 year old (and paying her for it? I can't remember). And that's even aside from all the rumored corruption and connections to the mafia.


It is odd .. the only comparison I can draw is that Berlusconi seems to be the Italian equivalent of the UK's Boris Johnson. No matter what he does he is deemed to be a loveable scallywag Smiley: dubious


Edited, Apr 3rd 2013 4:26pm by JennockFV
#74 Apr 03 2013 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Italians are just ******* weird.
____________________________
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.
#75 Apr 04 2013 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
******
43,836 posts
Wine and pasta is **** of a drug.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (36)