Amanda Knox Double Jeopardy

[lotus503]

Then lucky for her, she is within US borders. I would see the treaty burn before we violate the Bill of Rights.

remember that next time you want to extradite a killer from another country back to the US.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Well, based on what I'm seeing in the U.S./Italy Extradition treaty, she actually can't be extradited. The term is Non Bis in Idem - and completely bars extradition in case like this.

ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem
Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or
pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested.

From the US/Italy Bilateral extradition treaty.

So...actually, yeah, looks like it would be a violation of the Treaty to extradite her. So she's good.

 

[lotus503]

Well, based on what I'm seeing in the U.S./Italy Extradition treaty, she actually can't be extradited. The term is Non Bis in Idem - and completely bars extradition in case like this.



From the US/Italy Bilateral extradition treaty.

So...actually, yeah, looks like it would be a violation of the Treaty to extradite her. So she's good.

Good find! and corroborated on many different sites.

 

[juiio]

Well, based on what I'm seeing in the U.S./Italy Extradition treaty, she actually can't be extradited. The term is Non Bis in Idem - and completely bars extradition in case like this.



From the US/Italy Bilateral extradition treaty.

So...actually, yeah, looks like it would be a violation of the Treaty to extradite her. So she's good.

That means she can't extradited for a crime if she was tried for the same crime in the US. It doesn't apply here.

 

[Carfax83]

What I don't get, is how that Rudy Guede guy only got 16 years when he's obviously guilty as shit; and Knox and Sollecitio got almost 30 before they were acquitted? He may be eligible for release in 2016 from what I've read..

 

[juiio]

What I don't get, is how that Rudy Guede guy only got 16 years when he's obviously guilty as shit; and Knox and Sollecitio got almost 30 before they were acquitted? He may be eligible for release in 2016 from what I've read..

Guede opted for a fast track trial. In exchange for a shorter due process, the defendant gets a far shorter sentence if convicted.

 

[Tango]

This pretty much describes the whole story:

But Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Italian prosecutors might very well extradite Knox. And, if retried, she "likely will be found guilty -- because the evidence supporting a conviction is pretty strong."

Knox, now 25, has established a fan base in the United States "because she has a beautiful face and an angelic appearance," Dershowitz said. "But remember, she originally admitted she was at the scene of the crime and she tried to blame an innocent man -- for which she was also convicted."

After Knox and Sollecito were detained for questioning in the killing, she allegedly confessed to being at her home when Kercher was killed and implicated Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar where she worked.

Lumumba was detained, but was released after two weeks when his alibi was corroborated: he had spent the night of the murder talking to a customer in his pub in Perugia, police say. He went on to sue Knox for libel, winning 40,000 euros ($54,000) in damages.

Dershowitz said the case was not well tried the first time. "But at a second trial, there's a very high likelihood that they may very well convict her."

He predicted that Knox would resist any extradition attempt. But even if she were to succeed in that, "she remains a prisoner in the United States, because Interpol will put a warrant out for her and, if she travels anywhere outside the United States, she'll be immediately arrested and turned over to Italy."

Anybody who can read the material presented in the court in the original version (in Italian ) knows they are obviously guilty. I frankly fail to understand the media presentation of the case in the US.

 

[Carfax83]

Guede opted for a fast track trial. In exchange for a shorter due process, the defendant gets a far shorter sentence if convicted.

Looks like a slap in the face of justice. He gets no real punishment for murdering someone, and could even be released earlier than 16 years.

Murder should carry a minimum of 40 years or so. Rudy Guede should be an old man by the time he's out of prison, the youth of his life spent in a cell..

But assuming he does the full 16, he'll still be relatively young when he's released...

 

[Carfax83]

This pretty much describes the whole story:



Anybody who can read the material presented in the court in the original version (in Italian ) knows they are obviously guilty. I frankly fail to understand the media presentation of the case in the US.

I'm pleased to see the Italian side being represented here in this discussion.

However, according to what I've read, Knox's confession was made under extreme duress with no lawyer present, no appropriate translator, no transcript or videotape..

 

[Tango]

I'm pleased to see the Italian side being represented here in this discussion.

However, according to what I've read, Knox's confession was made under extreme duress with no lawyer present, no appropriate translator, no transcript or videotape..

Just to be clear, I am only 1/4 Italian so I have no "nationalistic skin in the game".

There was no proof of any of the alleged duress. And of course accusing a random dude (not so random, in fact, an African immigrant) is not something you do because details are lost in translation... The story Knox came up with to accuse Lumumba was rich of details and clearly well researched in the attempt to frame what was probably perceived as the perfect scapegoat. This alone tells you a lot.

The reason why I quote an Harvard law professor is because I know the media has presented the case in such a way that most of the American audience has now a quite distorted view of the facts, and would probably not put much weight in what comes from the Italian experts (this was a big part of the defense strategy). But really, there is a quite overwhelming amount of evidence supporting a conviction...

 

[monovillage]

But then you know, from your own link that:

Prosecutors didn’t charge commission members with failing to predict the earthquake but with conducting a hasty, superficial risk assessment and presenting incomplete, falsely reassuring findings to the public.

The verdict was sensationalized outside of Italy completely distorting what it was about. Also, the sentence was symbolic, in the sense that they won't face a single hour of jail time. The purpose was obtaining interdiction for them from holding in the future public policy positions similar to those where they failed. I don't remember this rather crucial element being explained in the media, where you saw instead quite ridiculous connections with the biography of Galileo (!!?) being made.

I was practicing hyperbole to make a political point.

 

[monovillage]

remember that next time you want to extradite a killer from another country back to the US.

That's why Holder ruled as he did on the use of drones to assassinate people, including American citizens out of country.

 

[Tango]

I was practicing hyperbole to make a political point.

Then you are waaaay too subtle for me

 

[Carfax83]

There was no proof of any of the alleged duress. And of course accusing a random dude (not so random, in fact, an African immigrant) is not something you do because details are lost in translation... The story Knox came up with to accuse Lumumba was rich of details and clearly well researched in the attempt to frame what was probably perceived as the perfect scapegoat. This alone tells you a lot.

But there was no evidence of the supposed confession, so how do we know it happened the way the prosecutors said it did? The police could have pressured her into scapegoating Lumumba for all we know..

My opinion is that Knox is a young, mentally weak woman who folded under the pressure of an all night interrogation by Italian police with no translator or lawyer present.. At one point, she was even told that she was HIV positive!

If she was guilty, why did she return to the crime scene the next morning and call the police, while Guede fled to Germany?

The reason why I quote an Harvard law professor is because I know the media has presented the case in such a way that most of the American audience has now a quite distorted view of the facts, and would probably not put much weight in what comes from the Italian experts (this was a big part of the defense strategy). But really, there is a quite overwhelming amount of evidence supporting a conviction...

If the evidence was overwhelming as you suggest, then she would still be in jail right now....but she and Sollecito were acquitted..

There is no DNA evidence linking her or Sollecito to the crime, and no motive. Guede on the other hand is a criminal known for carrying knives, and his DNA was found all over the crime scene, including inside of the victim's body..

This case doesn't get any clear cut if you ask me.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If the evidence was overwhelming as you suggest, then she would still be in jail right now....but she and Sollecito were acquitted..

From what I read of the evidence, it was poorly handled and the whole case looked like a complete mess. Don't get me wrong - she was absolutely stupid during the trial where she was convicted, smiling and all that...but I have a doubt in my mind as to guilt (from what I know of the evidence) so I'm willing to say let her go.

 

[Fern]

Well, based on what I'm seeing in the U.S./Italy Extradition treaty, she actually can't be extradited. The term is Non Bis in Idem - and completely bars extradition in case like this.



From the US/Italy Bilateral extradition treaty.

So...actually, yeah, looks like it would be a violation of the Treaty to extradite her. So she's good.

^This^ is what I'm seeing in my google search.

My guess is that she won't be extradited and that Italy won't even ask in order to avoid an international event.

Fern

 

[RampantAndroid]

^This^ is what I'm seeing in my google search.

My guess is that she won't be extradited and that Italy won't even ask in order to avoid an international event.

Fern

She wasn't acquitted before a jury, which is what matters here I think.

 

[juiio]

There is no DNA evidence linking her or Sollecito to the crime, and no motive.

That isn't true at all.

Mixtures of Amanda's and Meredith's blood were found three locations: The bathroom, the hallway, and Filomena's room. This was not disputed by the defense at all. Instead, they said it was a coincidence of the girls living together.

Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp. It is true that the bra clasp was not found initially, but contamination is incredibly unlikely, due to the lack of source for any potential contaminant.

Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife, and Meredith's was found on the sharp end. The defense didn't argue Amanda's DNA (reasonable, given that she lived there), but the defense's only argument against Meredith's was that the sample was too small and shouldn't be counted.

There is also a ton of other evidence other than just DNA evidence: The footprints, the staged break-in, Amanda knowing things that she shouldn't have known, Witnesses hearing multiple people, the unlikelihood of the crime being done by one person only, parts of it that Rudy could not have done, etc. Any of these things individually might not be enough to convict, but add everything up and the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[classy]

I think she could easily win a court injunction against extradition. She is a US citizen and now that she is on US soil, her rights should be afforded to her. Now she will have to be careful not to travel to countries that have extradition to Italy and lack our protections under the law. But I think she is safe........ Nor do I believe we should send her back to stand trial again for the same crime.

 

[Tango]

That isn't true at all.

Mixtures of Amanda's and Meredith's blood were found three locations: The bathroom, the hallway, and Filomena's room. This was not disputed by the defense at all. Instead, they said it was a coincidence of the girls living together.

Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp. It is true that the bra clasp was not found initially, but contamination is incredibly unlikely, due to the lack of source for any potential contaminant.

Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife, and Meredith's was found on the sharp end. The defense didn't argue Amanda's DNA (reasonable, given that she lived there), but the defense's only argument against Meredith's was that the sample was too small and shouldn't be counted.

There is also a ton of other evidence other than just DNA evidence: The footprints, the staged break-in, Amanda knowing things that she shouldn't have known, Witnesses hearing multiple people, the unlikelihood of the crime being done by one person only, parts of it that Rudy could not have done, etc. Any of these things individually might not be enough to convict, but add everything up and the evidence is overwhelming.

... and the multiple changes in their versions about their whereabouts the night of the murder, and the lies about Lumumba SMS's messages and claimed computer activity...

 

[Tango]

I think she could easily win a court injunction against extradition. She is a US citizen and now that she is on US soil, her rights should be afforded to her. Now she will have to be careful not to travel to countries that have extradition to Italy and lack our protections under the law. But I think she is safe........ Nor do I believe we should send her back to stand trial again for the same crime.

From the same article I quoted above:

He predicted that Knox would resist any extradition attempt. But even if she were to succeed in that, "she remains a prisoner in the United States, because Interpol will put a warrant out for her and, if she travels anywhere outside the United States, she'll be immediately arrested and turned over to Italy."

If found guilty Interpol would put a warrant for her.

 

[D1gger]

This sounds an awful lot like double jeopardy.

Italian law prohibits a version of double jeopardy — being tried anew for a crime for which you have already been cleared, said Praxilla Trabattoni, an Italian lawyer who was followed the case. This case is technically different.
Trabattoni said that the Supreme Court was essentially saying that "when the appeals court was evaluating whether she did it or didn’t, the appeals court did that on the basis of evidence that shouldn’t have been admitted.”

Italian law says that a judgment is not definitive until it’s cleared every degree of trial, Trabattoni said, and the Supreme Court is considered the third degree of trial, after the lower court and the appeals court. If the Supreme Court had upheld the acquittal and then prosecutors had brought a new case entirely, that would be considered double jeopardy under the Italian system, Trabattoni said.

From an NBC article.

This is the reasoning behind why the Italian courts do not look at this as double jeopardy.

 

[classy]

That isn't true at all.

Mixtures of Amanda's and Meredith's blood were found three locations: The bathroom, the hallway, and Filomena's room. This was not disputed by the defense at all. Instead, they said it was a coincidence of the girls living together.

Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp. It is true that the bra clasp was not found initially, but contamination is incredibly unlikely, due to the lack of source for any potential contaminant.

Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife, and Meredith's was found on the sharp end. The defense didn't argue Amanda's DNA (reasonable, given that she lived there), but the defense's only argument against Meredith's was that the sample was too small and shouldn't be counted.

There is also a ton of other evidence other than just DNA evidence: The footprints, the staged break-in, Amanda knowing things that she shouldn't have known, Witnesses hearing multiple people, the unlikelihood of the crime being done by one person only, parts of it that Rudy could not have done, etc. Any of these things individually might not be enough to convict, but add everything up and the evidence is overwhelming.

Any links to this stuff? There was no murder weapon found, so I don't know where you are getting your info.

 

[Fern]

She wasn't acquitted before a jury, which is what matters here I think.

In the articles I read in my search no attorney mentioned this.

Also, here in the US the defendant has a right to a jury, but may waive that and instead request a bench trial (judge is fact finder and decides guilt, there is no jury). I've searched and found states (e.g., CT) that allow a bench trial in capital cases. So, I don't see how whether or not the appeals case was with a jury or bench trial has any relevance to the question of double jeopardy.

Fern

 

[classy]

From the same article I quoted above:

He predicted that Knox would resist any extradition attempt. But even if she were to succeed in that, "she remains a prisoner in the United States, because Interpol will put a warrant out for her and, if she travels anywhere outside the United States, she'll be immediately arrested and turned over to Italy."

If found guilty Interpol would put a warrant for her.

I kind of figured that would be the case.
Thanks