Amanda Knox found guilty.

[Borishack]

Officials said the *last* time she was put on trial (after she was back in the US) they would not extradite her.

You are confusing the fact the Italian court stated Knox didn't have to be at the retrial (ergo, be tried in absentia) with extradition. Italy has never said they would not request extradition in the event of a final conviction.

Italy's court system is a joke.

Said so-called "joke" is law honored by a legal extradition treaty.

And if the conviction is sustained on final appeal, I don't think Ms. Knox or her supporters are going to find anything amusing about said "joke."

 

[Imzadi]

As far as Amanda, if she wants to go on the run, her options are limited: in addition to the United States, countries with extradition treaties with Italy include Argentina, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, The Vatican, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

That basically leaves the Middle East, the African subcontinent and most of Asia. Something tells me she isn't going to be interested in going to places like Iraq, Syria or Iran. Nor is Angola or Botswana going to be her cup of tea. The problem with most evolved regions or Asia (a continent I travel to frequently and know well) is countries there definitely frown on hosting fugitive expatriates. Hong Kong couldn't get rid of Edward Snowden fast enough.

Fiji isn't listed. I'd head there. I would have picked Guam, as I read a blog by an artist who lives there. But, Guam is a territory of the U.S.


Mexico isn't listed either. Did you purposely leave that out? It would be a lot easier for her family in Washington state to visit her there.

As for whether some place is "a cup of tea for her," I would think being FREE any place is preferable to in an Italian prison for 28 years.

 

[bcla]

Automatic? No. Honored on a relatively consistent basis? YES.

The State Department would make the initial determination on whether Italy has a sufficient case for seeking Knox's return. That would basically be a formality, because what would factor very, very seriously in the process is the fact we absolutely don't want jeopardize our reputation in honoring extradition requests. The U.S. makes more extradition requests than any other country in the world, so we don't want to give any country the sense we arbitrarily decide whether to honor ones we get based on media pressure or public opinion.

So I would argue the State Department would quickly transfer the case to the Justice Department, which would represent the interests of the Italian government (not Knox) in seeking her arrest and transfer in U.S. District Court. And you are incorrect, at that court there is hearing, not a trial.

And what you are also incorrect about is "all sorts of opportunities for the request to be shot down'. American courts actually have limited ability to review extradition requests from other countries. You are particularly wrong about U.S. judges reviewing the foreign case. What they do is ensure the extradition request meets basic legal requirements. They don't as you imply go through summary trial proceedings and apply American judicial assessments to the actions of foreign courts. As it was put by Mary Fan, a former U.S. federal prosecutor who teaches law at the University of Washington in Seattle.

"The U.S. courts don't sit in judgment of another nation's legal system."

And that is the core problem with your logic. You think honoring an extradition request is based on our deciding whether a foreign conviction complies with our legal theory.

As we (and she) will find if Knox loses her last appeal, it isn't.

There are differing opinions. From what I understand, Fan practiced law for 4 years and then went into academia. One comment I read about her is that she tends to be an idealist and not a pragmatist.

The fairness of the proceedings in Italy would be brought up in a hearing. It's not as if the DOJ simply presents its case and the judge works with that. Here's differing opinions:

http://abcnews.go.com/International...extradition/story?id=22296604&singlePage=true

If the Italy's supreme court upholds Knox's conviction, Italian justice officials can then submit a formal request for her to be extradited to Italy under the country's 2010 bilateral treaty with the United States, said Bruce Zagaris, a Washington-based attorney who specializes in extradition cases. This is at the discretion of the Minister of Justice and may never happen.

** **

"Even the court could take into consideration that there have been a number of irregularities in her case and as a result of the irregularities and the time she has spent detained, it would not be in the interest of justice," Zagaris said.

There's also the issue of double jeopardy. The decision today marks the third time a flip-flop verdict has been rendered in Knox's case.

In the American legal world, being retried for the same crime after being found innocent is "double jeopardy," which is outlawed in the U.S. judicial system.

American unease with double jeopardy could give Knox a "fighting chance" to appeal any extradition in a U.S. court, Christopher L. Blakesley, a professor of international law University of Nevada Las Vegas, told ABC News.com last year.

"There's room to fight extradition," Blakesley said, "and double jeopardy is the spot to fight on…. In the treaty, we functionally accept their system of justice, but it's up to a magistrate to decide whether" the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution was violated and if that trumps the treaty.

Knox's lawyers could also seek to have a prison sentence served in a U.S. prison instead of being sent back to Italy, Zagaris said.

If all else fails, Knox could be saved from extradition if Secretary of State John Kerry intervenes, according to Zagaris.

"She has raised a number of allegations about irregularities in terms of the ways she was apparently unfairly interrogated repeatedly [while in Italian custody] and so forth," Zagaris said.

"She definitely has some arguments because she has already gone through quite an ordeal."

Zagaris seems to have a lot of experience actually handling extradition cases, just judging by his C.V.

http://www.bcr.us/2006/en/bruce_zagaris.shtml

 

[bcla]

You are confusing the fact the Italian court stated Knox didn't have to be at the retrial (ergo, be tried in absentia) with extradition. Italy has never said they would not request extradition in the event of a final conviction.



Said so-called "joke" is law honored by a legal extradition treaty.

And if the conviction is sustained on final appeal, I don't think Ms. Knox or her supporters are going to find anything amusing about said "joke."

Isn't Italy still trying to get Robert Seldon Lady? I thought Panama knew that Italy would be seeking to prepare extradition papers, but they simply released him the day after police arrested him and let him travel to the US. While it wasn't a formal request, it's pretty clear they wouldn't have extradited him in the first place. And of course I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked if they'd tried that in the US.

 

[bcla]

And that is the core problem with your logic. You think honoring an extradition request is based on our deciding whether a foreign conviction complies with our legal theory.

Italy has turned down extradition requests for murder suspects in the US on the grounds that there is a death penalty in the state where the alleged murder occurred. And that was even when they had assurances that the prosecution wouldn't seek the death penalty.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html

Challenging American criminal justice on human rights grounds, Italy's constitutional court today blocked the extradition to the United States of an Italian wanted in Florida on first-degree murder charges because Florida law includes capital punishment among the possible penalties.

In its unanimous ruling, the court effectively declared unconstitutional legal provisions that make it possible for Italy, which does not allow the death penalty, to extradite suspects to countries in which capital punishment is an option for the crime for which they are to be tried, provided there are assurances that the death penalty will not be applied.

** ** **

Last December, Rome's Justice Ministry agreed to Mr. Venezia's extradition after the Dade County prosecutor's office made assurances that it would not seek the death penalty.

Mary Cagle, the Dade County prosecutor who sought Mr. Venezia's extradition and had agreed to forgo the death penalty, said, "I just don't think there's any justice there."

In at least several instances, Mr. Russell said, the United States has given assurances to Canada about forgoing the death penalty.

So they had an extradition request that was by the book, and Italy turned it down on the basis that the American system of justice was patently unfair because of the death penalty.

 

[AndyLL]

I think she is guilty but this isnt justice either, to keep trying her to they find her guilty, to look good to the world

Not sure what you are trying to say.

She was tried twice and convicted twice.

She was never acquitted in a trial... the 1st verdict was thrown out... the equivalent of a mistrial in the US.

 

[bcla]

Not sure what you are trying to say.

She was tried twice and convicted twice.

She was never acquitted in a trial... the 1st verdict was thrown out... the equivalent of a mistrial in the US.

No it wasn't. The appeals court called its overturning of the first trial an acquittal. They didn't remand it back to the lower court for a retrial. Then their Supreme Court overturned the acquittal. This third trial was essentially another retrial, as was the previous appeal that resulted in acquittal. In the US once there's an acquittal, only a specific circumstance (bribery of a judge) can that acquittal be set aside. However, in Italy an acquittal can be set aside by a higher court.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/

Rome (CNN) -- The jury that cleared American student Amanda Knox of murder did so for lack of evidence proving she was guilty, the judge in the case said in legal paperwork published Thursday.

"Even taken all together," the prosecution's evidence does not "prove in any way the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the crime of" killing British student Meredith Kercher, the judge wrote.

Prosecutors will probably appeal the acquittal, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini told CNN on Thursday.

Either side can appeal a conviction in Italy, but appeals cannot be filed before the judge publishes the jury's reasoning for its verdict.

An appeal in the Knox case would be on narrow technical grounds only and would probably take a day or two. It is unlikely Knox would return to Italy from the United States for the appeal.

Knox and Sollecito were convicted of murder in 2009 but cleared on appeal in October.

The oddest thing about the grounds for the overturning of the acquittal was that their Supreme Court claimed that they didn't adequately prove their innocence or that the prosecutor's chain of events couldn't be true.

 

[AndyLL]

No it wasn't. The appeals court called its overturning of the first trial an acquittal. They didn't remand it back to the lower court for a retrial. Then their Supreme Court overturned the acquittal. This third trial was essentially another retrial, as was the previous appeal that resulted in acquittal.

Lazy reporters keep using american legal terms as if they have the same meaning in other countries.

In Italy... a guilty verdict is not official like it is in the USA... the defendant is guaranteed an appeal.

During the appeal the defendant is still presumed innocent.

So when the verdict was overturned she was resumed innocent but that was not official pending that decisions appeal.

It is still not official. She is still presumed innocent until her final appeal confirms the guilty verdict.

This is all part of one process.

No jury acquitted Knox. The term 'acquitted' as used by the appeals court does not have the same meaning as it would in the US. It is equivalent to the verdict being overturned.

The exact same sequence of events can happen in the USA justice system.

You can be convicted by a jury.
Have the guilty verdict thrown out.
Have the defense and prosecution argue before a higher court on if they retry.
Retry and get another guilty verdict.

That's exactly what happened in the case.

 

[AndyLL]

The oddest thing about the grounds for the overturning of the acquittal was that their Supreme Court claimed that they didn't adequately prove their innocence or that the prosecutor's chain of events couldn't be true.

Why is that odd?

In the USA if you are convicted by a jury you are considered guilty and have to have strong proof just to get a new trial. You are not given an automatic conviction.

The Italian Supreme Court had 3 choices... they took the middle route.

 

[lizzi6692]

I agree with the person who said the Italian legal system is a joke and a very sick one at that. I don't believe the prosecution should be allowed to appeal, if they make a mistake that is their own fault. In this case I believe the mistake is that charges were brought against two innocent people. I don't think for one second that Amanda could have done the things they accused her of and manage to not leave one speck of evidence behind. And if there is no evidence there should be no conviction. They can't even prove she was there that night so how on earth could they prove that she murdered Meredith.

Also, any "lies" she may have told were done so under the duress of being questioned for 4 days without a lawyer. Even the judge said the manner in which she was questioned was not okay.

And I think it's kind of ironic that Amanda Knox has been persecuted for changing her story during the days after the murder when the prosecution is doing the exact same thing now. Up until this last court proceeding the prosecution has sworn up and down that the murder was the result of sex games gone wrong. Now they're trying to say Amanda killed her because of an unflushed toilet. I think the prosecution knows that Amanda didn't do it but refuse to admit that they made a mistake and think it's acceptable to put an innocent person in prison just to save face.

 

[Lolsmum]

I agree with the person who said the Italian legal system is a joke and a very sick one at that. I don't believe the prosecution should be allowed to appeal, if they make a mistake that is their own fault. In this case I believe the mistake is that charges were brought against two innocent people. I don't think for one second that Amanda could have done the things they accused her of and manage to not leave one speck of evidence behind. And if there is no evidence there should be no conviction. They can't even prove she was there that night so how on earth could they prove that she murdered Meredith.

Also, any "lies" she may have told were done so under the duress of being questioned for 4 days without a lawyer. Even the judge said the manner in which she was questioned was not okay.

And I think it's kind of ironic that Amanda Knox has been persecuted for changing her story during the days after the murder when the prosecution is doing the exact same thing now. Up until this last court proceeding the prosecution has sworn up and down that the murder was the result of sex games gone wrong. Now they're trying to say Amanda killed her because of an unflushed toilet. I think the prosecution knows that Amanda didn't do it but refuse to admit that they made a mistake and think it's acceptable to put an innocent person in prison just to save face.

If the Italian system (prosecutors, judges or whoever) were really just interested saving face they would have just dropped it and let it fade into distant memory long before now.

The Italian system is not identical to the US system and all those assuming it is, and that their lay understanding of US legal terms somehow gives them a good understanding of Italian legal terms, are just plain wrong. It's like assuming Disney must run their parks identically to Six Flags.

 

[lizzi6692]

If the Italian system (prosecutors, judges or whoever) were really just interested saving face they would have just dropped it and let it fade into distant memory long before now.

The Italian system is not identical to the US system and all those assuming it is, and that their lay understanding of US legal terms somehow gives them a good understanding of Italian legal terms, are just plain wrong. It's like assuming Disney must run their parks identically to Six Flags.

I understand that the two systems are not identical, but I do not agree with the way the Italian system works. And I think that anyone that does agree with a system in which you can be convicted and put in prison without any actual evidence against you is nuts.

 

[Tinker74]

If only the US system allowed the prosecution to appeal...Casey Anthony would now be rotting behind bars!

Having said that I don not believe there is anywhere near enough evidence to say knox is guilty.

What is worse a guily person being free {casey} OR an innocent person behind bars for life? {knox}

I would say an innocent person behind bars is worse and should NOT be allowed to happen

 

[lorimay]

Raphael was taken into custody last night.
They say he may have been trying to flee Italy. I don't blame him!
Story coming up on The Today show.

 

[DisneyDetective]

I am a UK resident so don't know the US law at all but does the United States not have a double jeopardy ruling?

 

[kmb584]

I am a UK resident so don't know the US law at all but does the United States not have a double jeopardy ruling?

We do have double jeopardy. By law, if a person is acquitted or found not guilty s/he can never be retried for the crime.

 

[disney1990]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Although she acted unwisely after the fact and drew attention to herself in a negative way, that alone is not a crime. You simply cannot have THREE people commit a frenzied, bloody murder and only find DNA from ONE of them at the crime scene, while the DNA of the other TWO cannot be found.

It is impossible to selectively clean/wipe/rinse/wash away the DNA of two murderers while leaving plenty from the third murderer. How dense does a court have to be to fail to comprehend that?

She acted like a 20 year old.

 

[Borishack]

I am a UK resident so don't know the US law at all but does the United States not have a double jeopardy ruling?

Yes, U.S. law does not allow someone who has been found innocent to be tried again for the same crime.

That stated, the above doesn't matter relative to the assessment of an extradition request. Our extradition treaty with Italy specifically states the only version of double jeopardy that would impact a extradition request would be if the requested individual has been tried for the same crime in both countries but ending up with different findings.

That is not the case here. The crime was committed in only one of the countries and the Knox was tried in that one. And no, there is no slick "work around" of trying to come up with a way to quickly have some sort of "Knox show trial" in the U.S. where she is found innocent of the murder, because the U.S. has no legal jurisdiction in this case. The crime didn't happen here and the victim wasn't an American.

Lastly, as this moves forward, I would recommend people be careful of what media they use to stay up on the issue of potential extradition. ABC is doing a pretty good job with the subject, with CNN being the worst (one of their so-called "experts" this morning said our double jeopardy policy trumps the extradition treaty, which is flat out wrong).

 

[Praying Colonel]

Double jeopardy does not apply over there. They can keep going as much as they want. At some point their system needs things to change. He is using things that don't apply, his imagination is running wild.

And because double jeopardy laws don't apply over there, I don't believe the US will extradite her. Any extradition request will have to be routed through the Departments of State and Justice, which will do a legal review. IMHO the process will end there.

Remember the Roman Polanski case? The US submitted an extradition request to the French government, which refused to comply. He was later arrested in Switzerland, and the Swiss also refused to extradite him. Extradition requests aren't automatically complied with, even among friendly nations.

 

[eliza61]

I agree with the person who said the Italian legal system is a joke and a very sick one at that. I don't believe the prosecution should be allowed to appeal, if they make a mistake that is their own fault. In this case I believe the mistake is that charges were brought against two innocent people. I don't think for one second that Amanda could have done the things they accused her of and manage to not leave one speck of evidence behind. And if there is no evidence there should be no conviction. They can't even prove she was there that night so how on earth could they prove that she murdered Meredith.

Also, any "lies" she may have told were done so under the duress of being questioned for 4 days without a lawyer. Even the judge said the manner in which she was questioned was not okay.

And I think it's kind of ironic that Amanda Knox has been persecuted for changing her story during the days after the murder when the prosecution is doing the exact same thing now. Up until this last court proceeding the prosecution has sworn up and down that the murder was the result of sex games gone wrong. Now they're trying to say Amanda killed her because of an unflushed toilet. I think the prosecution knows that Amanda didn't do it but refuse to admit that they made a mistake and think it's acceptable to put an innocent person in prison just to save face.

LOL talk about pot calling kettle black. LOL and of course no american prosecutor has ever hid evidence, ignored evidence or convicted anyone on false ground. Noooo not here.

The US legal system has absolutely no grounds what so ever to criticize any one elses legal system, thank you very much. The corruption, miscarriages and out and out travesties that occur in our system from the cops right up to the supreme court could fill a book.

Not every other country has to go by "US" rules. One of the reasons every one else feels this country is Arrogant and bullies.

Now I haven't been following this case enough to really care about this girl. I do know that in Europe she is not the little "saint" the media here potrays her to be, nor am I a lawyer. I do know the crime was committed in a sovereign nation that has the right to determine and execute it's laws.

It is no more a joke than our legal system