Erroll 49 #51 February 3, 2014 normissOur constitution protects us from double jeopardy. From Sky News QuoteThe professor said he doubted that even double jeopardy - where someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence - will protect Knox. This is because she was initially found guilty and her acquittal was heard at an intermediate appeals level. "If that happened in the US, it wouldn't be double jeopardy," he said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #52 February 3, 2014 tigraThe initial prosecutor was charged with misconduct relating to a different case. He has an interesting history. None of it makes sense to me. How do you charge and convict 3 people for rape and murder with 2 completely different versions of the crime and solid physical evidence against only one of them? If I was the victim's parents, I would be wondering how the guy who raped and murdered my daughter got such a light sentence. 15-16 years? For all we know, they will still be arguing appeals when he is released. Thats not a light sentence outside of the USA.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #53 February 3, 2014 Andy9o8 ***I couldn't tell you. The monitor that my desk faces has CNN International on it. Maybe the human interest coupled with the international implications? That's a pretty fancy name for "hot chick goes wild". When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #54 February 3, 2014 Erroll***Our constitution protects us from double jeopardy. From Sky News QuoteThe professor said he doubted that even double jeopardy - where someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence - will protect Knox. This is because she was initially found guilty and her acquittal was heard at an intermediate appeals level. "If that happened in the US, it wouldn't be double jeopardy," he said. Well, what the professor (Alan Dershowitz, a serial self-promoter, FWIW) conveniently neglects to mention is that it's not quite that simple, and that, in fact, "It depends." In the US, if an appeals court rules a conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, then they can remand the case back down to the trial court for re-trial without the inadmissible evidence; and double jeopardy does not prevent such a re-trial. But if the appeals court rules that the admissible evidence at the trial simply was insufficient to convict, then the conviction will be overturned and the case will be over - in that instance, the double jeopardy rule prevents a re-trial. I'm still trying to ferret it out, but so far it seems to me that in Knox's case, the "third court", in large part, basically reviewed pretty much the same evidence as was presented at the first trial; but this time, decided that that evidence was enough to convict. I'm not sure that would have been permitted under US law - for reasons of double jeopardy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #55 February 3, 2014 I'm not digging into it like you appear to be. It just seems to me that the two systems are very different. Pretending that they have parallel functions doesn't help understanding. It does seem, however, that the US system would have declared it over once a court of competent jurisdiction declared her 'not guilty' as the second court appears to have. The fact that they let her loose and she returned to the US legally is pretty persuasive on that point.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #56 February 3, 2014 davjohnsI'm not digging into it like you appear to be. It just seems to me that the two systems are very different. Pretending that they have parallel functions doesn't help understanding. It does seem, however, that the US system would have declared it over once a court of competent jurisdiction declared her 'not guilty' as the second court appears to have. The fact that they let her loose and she returned to the US legally is pretty persuasive on that point. Yeah, the extradition issue is really the only reason I was interested enough to dig into it. I still think that legally the basis for extraditing her is weak from the US perspective - not only due to double jeopardy issues, but also because she was re-tried in absentia. And to those who would point out that she chose to absent herself from the court, I would answer that the Italians allowed her to leave the country pending appeal, rather than, for example, simply granting her bail but requiring her to remain on Italian soil under supervision until the appeal was decided. The Italians knew fully well that she'd never return voluntarily and that extradition was iffy at best when they made the decision to let her leave the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #57 February 3, 2014 My line of thinking as well. It seems to me they should have requested extradition to have her there for trial. I wonder if they recognized the double-jeopardy problem and avoided it. Having now convicted her, they may see it as greater pressure on the US to go along with extradition. Then, you have to wonder if the media attention is being manipulated to cause a counter-effect in the US.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #58 February 3, 2014 Well the wild card is the political element, not the legal. The US State Department may choose to support an extradition request from Italy per the treaty because it wants to assure reciprocal extradition to the US of fugitives like Snowden. FWIW, though, the final legal decision will still be made not at the political level, but by a US District Court at an extradition hearing.* * 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #59 February 3, 2014 >Really not sure why 99.999% of people should care. Is it because she's pretty? Primarily, yes. The case would not have garnered anywhere near the attention had it been a fat 50-year old guy who was accused of killing his girlfriend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,345 #60 February 3, 2014 billvon>Really not sure why 99.999% of people should care. Is it because she's pretty? Primarily, yes. The case would not have garnered anywhere near the attention had it been a fat 50-year old guy who was accused of killing his girlfriend. The dead girl was pretty. The accused girl is pretty. There's drug fueled sex. And a dead body. And the guy who can be pretty clearly linked to the dead body accuses the girl of being part of it. Which she denies. The writers of CSI or NCIS couldn't ask for a better recipe."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
