Amanda Knox guilty.....again.

[quikah]

That will be unilaterally breaking the extradition treaty we have with italy. The treaty says NOTHING about double jeopardy.

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf

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.

 

[Dari]

Bullshit.

We all value your opinion here on matters of law. So could you please elaborate on this "Bullshit" comment?

 

[Dari]

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf

Well, there goes that argument...

 

[TreVader]

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf

"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."

They won't be requesting extradition for those acts.

 

[GoPackGo]

Well, there goes that argument...

So Double Jeopardy does apply.

 

[TreVader]

You guys seem to think you know better than Alan Dershowitz. I hate to break it to you, but you don't know shit about law, and he does.


From wikipedia:

"Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.[1] Dershowitz retired from teaching at Harvard Law in December 2013.[2]"

 

[TreVader]

So Double Jeopardy does apply.

Double Jeopardy can only be used as an ARGUMENT to not extradite her. It is a US law that applies on US soil, she was not on US soil when she allegedly committed the crime, was charged, convicted, acquitted and convicted again so there is a very good argument that she should be extradited.

Add that to the fact that we want Snowden, and it will look ridiculous for us to complain about Russia not extraditing him when we won't extradite a girl who has already been convicted of murder TWICE, and you get a very high likelihood of extradition.


Read this:
"By ALAN DERSHOWITZ
March 27, 2013 8:19 p.m. ET
Italy's highest court may have begun a diplomatic and legal tug of war with the United States on Tuesday when it reversed the 2011 acquittal of Amanda Knox. Ms. Knox, you will recall, is the American former exchange student convicted by an Italian trial court in 2009 of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher—but that conviction was overturned on appeal two years ago, and Ms. Knox returned from an Italian prison to the U.S.

The factors behind the initial conviction included an admission by Ms. Knox that she was at the crime scene in the northern Italian town of Perugia, plus her false accusation that a bartender had slit Kercher's throat. The case against her also included a questionable alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. In a bizarre ruling, the trial court held that Ms. Knox's admission could not be used against her, but that her false accusation could form the basis of a separate crime that the Italians call "calumny." The appeals court then threw out the DNA evidence (for technical forensic reasons) and acquitted Ms. Knox of the murder charges.

Now Italy's highest court has 90 days to explain its decision to reverse that acquittal. Whatever its reasoning, Italian law calls for the case to be reheard by a new appeals court, which can either affirm the conviction or order an acquittal. If the conviction is ultimately affirmed, the Italian government can petition the U.S. to extradite Ms. Knox to Italy to complete serving the 26-year prison term to which she was sentenced in 2009.

Ms. Knox would likely challenge any extradition request on the ground that she was already acquitted by the lower appellate court, so any subsequent conviction would constitute double jeopardy.

That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.

America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?

That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.

Italian courts could probably have avoided this complexity by requiring Ms. Knox to remain in Italy, perhaps subject to house arrest, until the completion of the appeals process. Instead, Italian authorities allowed her to return to the U.S.

It is now unlikely, according to her Italian lawyer, that she will return to Italy while legal proceedings play out over several years in appellate courts where her presence isn't required. Meanwhile, she will be selling a memoir in the U.S., where she is widely regarded as a wrongfully convicted victim of an unjust Italian legal system. In Italy and England, she is seen by many as a guilty and manipulative American.

The family of the victim may file suit against Ms. Knox, especially in light of the large advance she reportedly received for her book. There is no double-jeopardy bar to such a civil suit, which could be brought in the U.S. (where the money is), in Italy (where the crime was committed) or in England (where the victim's family lives and where the book will also be sold). All that is required for a civil suit to succeed is proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and American or British courts may well admit evidence in a civil case that the Italian courts excluded in the criminal one.

Over the next several years, then, we will likely see a major demonstration of transnational law—that is, law applied by the domestic legal system of one nation against citizens of other nations. Each of the three countries involved in this case will seek to do justice by applying its own distinct rules to litigants and victims from different countries.

Transnational law is distinct from international law, which is uniform and often applied by international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. International law isn't generally applicable to domestic crimes committed by individual citizens of one nation against those of another.

As national borders become more porous, citizens more mobile, businesses more multinational and international courts more politicized, the trend toward the transnational application of laws will become more pronounced. This will increasingly expose U.S. citizens and businesses to the vagaries of foreign laws and procedures with which they may not be familiar, but that is a price to pay for the benefits of a shrinking world.

By becoming an exchange student in Italy, Ms. Knox subjected herself to Italian law. By coming back to America, she received the protection of the American extradition process. As for how all this will turn out, she is in uncharted territory.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010)."

 

[TreVader]

Well, there goes that argument...

Well, there goes your argument. Glad Dershowitz could help you plebs understand.

 

[werepossum]

You might find this of interest:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/

Holy bat crap. Looks like Italian justice has progressed from trial by drowning only in that it no longer scares the fishes.

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf

QED, thanks.

I hate to admit it but I'm going to side with CanOWorms here. If this had not been an attractive foreigner but rather an unattractive local, I'm betting she'd be doing twenty years right now. Unless there is a lot of defense horsepower and/or a lot of publicity making it harder to hide this kind of blatant dishonesty, the prosecution probably gets away with it and the accused is presumed guilty. Especially given that the judge called a witness' boss as a neutral expert.

 

[TreVader]

If this had not been an attractive foreigner but rather an unattractive local, I'm betting she'd be doing twenty years right now.

It's a cold day in hell when I agree with you.

 

[Brovane]

Add that to the fact that we want Snowden, and it will look ridiculous for us to complain about Russia not extraditing him when we won't extradite a girl who has already been convicted of murder TWICE, and you get a very high likelihood of extradition.

The problem with this argument is it isn't US authorities that will have the final say on extradition. If US authorities decide to move forward with extradition then her lawyers will file a appeal in the US judicial system. A US judge will decide if the extradition request is lawful and the judge will care less about the impact on the Snowden extradition. He will judge the case on it's own merit.

 

[TreVader]

The problem with this argument is it isn't US authorities that will have the final say on extradition. If US authorities decide to move forward with extradition then her lawyers will file a appeal in the US judicial system. A US judge will decide if the extradition request is lawful and the judge will care less about the impact on the Snowden extradition. He will judge the case on it's own merit.

And you don't think judges can be swayed by political pressure?

I don't think Snowden will be the deciding factor, but it will certainly factor into whether they bow to pressure from public opinion.

 

[Carfax83]

I hate to admit it but I'm going to side with CanOWorms here. If this had not been an attractive foreigner but rather an unattractive local, I'm betting she'd be doing twenty years right now. Unless there is a lot of defense horsepower and/or a lot of publicity making it harder to hide this kind of blatant dishonesty, the prosecution probably gets away with it and the accused is presumed guilty. Especially given that the judge called a witness' boss as a neutral expert.

Personally, I don't think her looks mattered except to garner more sympathy (and hatred) and more attention...

But in the end, the salacious nature of the crime and the corrupt investigation and prosecution would have attracted a lot of media attention anyway.

This is really just a matter of justice, or lack thereof. This case was a circus from start to finish. The prosecutor himself was under investigation for charges of corruption, but he was still allowed to prosecute Knox which is goddamn retarded.

His name is Giuliano Mignini. Google him, and you'll see how corrupt and incompetent he was, and not just in the Knox case either...

 

[werepossum]

Personally, I don't think her looks mattered except to garner more sympathy (and hatred) and more attention...

But in the end, the salacious nature of the crime and the corrupt investigation and prosecution would have attracted a lot of media attention anyway.

This is really just a matter of justice, or lack thereof. This case was a circus from start to finish. The prosecutor himself was under investigation for charges of corruption, but he was still allowed to prosecute Knox which is goddamn retarded.

His name is Giuliano Mignini. Google him, and you'll see how corrupt and incompetent he was, and not just in the Knox case either...

The extra attention was my point. Abuses such as Mignini's do not hold up well if everyone is looking at them, whereas it doesn't matter what one can point to if no one is listening. And clearly, the judge wasn't listening to anyone but the prosecution.

 

[Brovane]

And you don't think judges can be swayed by political pressure?

I don't think Snowden will be the deciding factor, but it will certainly factor into whether they bow to pressure from public opinion.

Well the pressure from public opinion is going to be against her extradition from everything that I have seen so far. The US press had made her out to be sympathetic and the reporting on how thin the evidence is and the mockary of the Italian judicial system. I am not saying the US press is right but that is how it is playing out. I also doubt that their will be much political pressure if any with the way the US public opinion is. I mean if the state department tries to do extradition and gets blocked by a US judge they can at least say, hey we tried but a judge blocked us. I just don't see them exerting much political capital over this and certainly not enough to sway a judge. The US public doesn't equate what Knox did or didn't do with what Snowden did. I think this is why her Lawyer is smart by having her out in the press right now. She presents a sympathetic image of a US citizen being threatened by a out of control Italian judicial system. She is probably well coached and what to say and what not to say. So I really don't see anyone in the State Department or in this current Administration going to bat to submit political pressure to get her extradited, especially with the pressure that would be required to sway a judge. It would be different if the evidence was better or she had been accused of some terrorist bombing etc.

 

[Doppel]

Snowden is irrelevant here. He broke US law and ran away from the US. He remains a US citizen.

Knox is a US citizen in the US who's extradition would send her to a country that already once found her innocent (though I read the bolded above about how it's not acquittal by a jury).

I still don't see her getting extradited, as the original conviction seemed pretty dubious anyway.

 

[quikah]

Snowden is irrelevant here. He broke US law and ran away from the US. He remains a US citizen.

More like Snowden is irrelevant because Russia is only going to extradite him if we offer them something they want, what happens to knox doesn't matter. At most they can get a few days of pretending to be superior by pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by sactoking View Post
But she's a US citizen currently in the US. While there is an extradition treaty with Italy the US is under no obligation to hold to the treaty if it deprives a citizen of a right. Double jeopardy is a right in the US and it is likely that the country will not send her away to have her rights violated. Similarly, the US would not extradite a citizen to a foreign country to face punishment by stoning, since such punishment would be cruel and unusual.

This is not unheard of, other countries will often refuse to extradite to the US if the death penalty is involved.

It's not a right though. There is no right thats says "a US citizen will not be extradited if US laws are not followed". I'm not sure why this is confusing. She will probably be extradited, however it's possible public uproar will stop that. It won't be because of double jeopardy tho

WTH?

That will be unilaterally breaking the extradition treaty we have with italy. The treaty says NOTHING about double jeopardy.

Damn. The US Constitution says no Double Jeopardy as plain as day in the 5th Amentment:

[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb .

 

[Agent11]

Frightening that a modern western country has such an antiquated justice system isn't it? Makes ours look pretty damn good by comparison.

I read the boyfriend was caught at the border, trying to run to Austria. . . Bet he wishes he had made that decision sooner.

 

[Tango]

Frightening that a modern western country has such an antiquated justice system isn't it? Makes ours look pretty damn good by comparison.

I am not sure what you consider antiquated or strange about their justice system. Having three degrees of judgement is a very common feature.

You might be amused by the fact that quite a lot of jurists consider the American one to be an anomaly, and one conducive to the significant social asymmetries in incarceration rates well documented in scientific literature.

The reality is each system has its merits, and should be fully understood before criticized.

I have business both in Europe and the US, and live in both, and I can tell you I'd personally prefer to have a penal charge in Italy over the US. Especially if I were guilty.

 

[flexy]

Frightening that a modern western country has such an antiquated justice system isn't it? Makes ours look pretty damn good by comparison.

I read the boyfriend was caught at the border, trying to run to Austria. . . Bet he wishes he had made that decision sooner.

What makes you (and thousands others) a qualified expert on the Italian justice system? Can you present where the investigators made errors...based on facts....rather than echoing a rather general opinion "that the Italian justice system is flawed/antiquated" etc..it's just getting old...

And by the way...the American is better? Jodi Arias? OJ? Etc...etc..pretty much any trial I follow there seems to me like a farce also...

 

[Printer Bandit]

OJ trial was the correct verdict. it was actually his son that killed the 2.

 

[Geosurface]

OJ trial was the correct verdict. it was actually his son that killed the 2.

No, it wasn't.

The person who has been pushing that idea for years is a hack with a track record of just basically trying to increase his own prominence and profits with a "shocking new theory!"

"Bill Dear almost completely avoids any discussion of the actual blood evidence at the scene, the single most important piece of evidence to consider. And his ideas for how OJ Simpson's blood ended up at the scene are beyond preposterous."

There was a MASSIVE amount of evidence from all sorts of disparate vectors in that case which showed OJ to be guilty.

 

[StinkyPinky]

What makes you (and thousands others) a qualified expert on the Italian justice system? Can you present where the investigators made errors...based on facts....rather than echoing a rather general opinion "that the Italian justice system is flawed/antiquated" etc..it's just getting old...

And by the way...the American is better? Jodi Arias? OJ? Etc...etc..pretty much any trial I follow there seems to me like a farce also...

Not to mention the American system murders its citizens (death penalty). Not even the Italians stoop to that level of mediaevalism.

Those in glass houses....

 

[Vic]

LOL k well you can call it BS, while me, Alan Dershowitz, and every other person with sense disagrees.

Alan said what you said? Could you link me to that? In case you forgot, you said:

I think you're totally wrong here, her sexuality saved her ass. If she wasn't hot nobody would give a shit if she hanged. I would say it's actually the opposite, it's unfair she is treated as well as she is just because of her appearance. If an average or worse, ugly girl was accused of this crime she'd probably be in prison and that would be that.