There's no double jeopardy clause in Italy Follow

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.

A voided conviction is not the same as an acquittal.

Not interested in researching Italian law, but I suspect there may be a difference.

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.

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.

Socks Bagel!

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

A bit of an olive-oily herbed zing.

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.

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 sex 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.

Italians are just ******* weird.