Country 1 law - cannot be tried for a crime more than once.
Country 2 law - cannot be tried for a crime more than twice.

I am a citizen of country 1, but commit a crime in country 2. Which law applies?

WebFire;1414735 wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it on a whim. I am merely asking if our law protects us from international or other country laws, when the crime was not committed here.

It will certainly be a factor. If Italy is dumb enough to petition the U.S. for extradition the first questions to be asked are if there is any new evidence and if not why should she be subject to another trial. The nuances depend on the treaty itself.

I'd be somewhat suprised that something similar albeit less high profile hasn't happened before.

WebFire;1414730 wrote:So what? She didn't commit the crime here. You are using U.S. law in another country.

In doing some more reading, it does matter. U.S. extradition in most cases must meet dual criminality. The treaty with Italy contains a dual criminality clause, meaning that each country will only extradite if the crime is actually a crime in both countries. So that means, yes, if you break the law that says that you cannot fart in public on Sundays in Italy, you will be granted asylum in the U.S.

LJ;1414773 wrote:In doing some more reading, it does matter. U.S. extradition in most cases must meet dual criminality. The treaty with Italy contains a dual criminality clause, meaning that each country will only extradite if the crime is actually a crime in both countries. So that means, yes, if you break the law that says that you cannot fart in public on Sundays in Italy, you will be granted asylum in the U.S.

Thanks for that. But if I understand, the crime she is accused of is a crime in both countries. What we are discussing is the judicial process for it. Right?

WebFire;1414793 wrote:Thanks for that. But if I understand, the crime she is accused of is a crime in both countries. What we are discussing is the judicial process for it. Right?

But she was already tried for it. Meaning dual criminality may not apply because in the u.s court system's eyes, no crime was committed.

International extradition is very judicial in the u.s. a district court justice will hold a hearing to determine if all criteria is met. Because of that, I don't see how a justice, who has taken am oath to uphold the constitution, can effectively put a citizen in a double jeopardy situation.

I would hit Knox if that helps!

Foxy Knoxxy?

I guess she is somewhat attractive - heck the prosecution's main argument is that she was involved in some sort of sex cult that involved human sacrifice or something. I suppose the clear explanation that a drug dealer drifter sexually assaulted and killed her is too simple.

LJ;1414798 wrote:But she was already tried for it. Meaning dual criminality may not apply because in the u.s court system's eyes, no crime was committed.

Ok, I can see that point. So in the U.S.'s eyes, she was cleared of wrongdoing, therefore the crime goes away.

But was she CONVICTED and then acquitted by the appelate court, which was then rejected by the Supreme Court(?) I think there may be some wriggle room there. In the US, if you won an appeal you probably are released but when that was later reversed you would go back to jail.

So this is much more complicated than double jeopardy because you have a divergence of the laws. Anyone's guess how the courts would see that, but I would take the position that the appelate ruling is vacated, so she is back to being convicted and being granted a new trial is in her best interest. And there are certainly cases of that in the American courts - she was convicted but has been granted a new trial. No double jeopardy.

In other words, did the appelate court err in it's ruling? Because if it's a case they should have ordered a new trial rather than acquitting her there is no double jeopardy. But then there's also the distinction that the appelate court cited a lack of evidence, which is entirely different than NEW evidence warranting a new trial for a convicted felon.

If the jury verdict was vacated, or it's a mistrial - one of which appears to be the case - then I'd agree double jeopardy applies.

She was initially convicted on virtually no evidence, other than she was weird, an American and a roommate.

gut;1414928 wrote:But was she CONVICTED and then acquitted by the appelate court, which was then rejected by the Supreme Court(?) I think there may be some wriggle room there. In the US, if you won an appeal you probably are released but when that was later reversed you would go back to jail.

So this is much more complicated than double jeopardy because you have a divergence of the laws. Anyone's guess how the courts would see that, but I would take the position that the appelate ruling is vacated, so she is back to being convicted and being granted a new trial is in her best interest. And there are certainly cases of that in the American courts - she was convicted but has been granted a new trial. No double jeopardy.

In other words, did the appelate court err in it's ruling? Because if it's a case they should have ordered a new trial rather than acquitting her there is no double jeopardy. But then there's also the distinction that the appelate court cited a lack of evidence, which is entirely different than NEW evidence warranting a new trial for a convicted felon.

If the jury verdict was vacated, or it's a mistrial - one of which appears to be the case - then I'd agree double jeopardy applies.

From what I understand of the Italian court system, the appeal is part of the trial process. So they have the trial, there is a verdict, then it is reviewed, and either party can appeal. The appeal is actually a 2nd trial. So the supreme court is saying that she has to go back for a THIRD trial. She is not back to being convicted, she is back to square one. There is no jury trial in the Italian court either, so there is no such thing as a jury verdict or mistrial. It's either guilty or not guilty.

It's really going to be interesting to see what happens. I just don't think a Justice (who would have to approve extradition) would put an American citizan in a double (triple) jeopardy situation.

Manhattan Buckeye;1414931 wrote:She was initially convicted on virtually no evidence, other than she was weird, an American and a roommate.

But I'm not sure that's for an American court to decide. This case was ordered back to the appellate court, so that's really a distinction from double jeopardy. We'll have to see what the exact ruling is, but as of right now it appears her ACQUITTAL has been vacated as improper. So double jeopardy wouldn't apply to a convict awaiting a new trial.

Now, would any US judge facing re-election send her back to Italy? Probably not. I'm not sure of the extradition process, but one would imagine they do weigh the facts of the case in their decision.

LJ;1414936 wrote:From what I understand of the Italian court system, the appeal is part of the trial process. So they have the trial, there is a verdict, then it is reviewed, and either party can appeal. The appeal is actually a 2nd trial. So the supreme court is saying that she has to go back for a THIRD trial. She is not back to being convicted, she is back to square one. There is no jury trial in the Italian court either, so there is no such thing as a jury verdict or mistrial. It's either guilty or not guilty.

It's really going to be interesting to see what happens. I just don't think a Justice (who would have to approve extradition) would put an American citizan in a double (triple) jeopardy situation.

So again it's a divergence of the processes. But the fact remains she has not been acquitted - if you're going to draw parallels to the appellate process here it's been kicked back for review. Double/triple jeopardy or whatever you want to call it is apples and oranges. She was convicted, their process grants an automatic appeal, which happens to be another trial...there's a problem with that appelate decision. She is not back to square one - it's back to that appellate court.

For an American court it is. Italy has to show some sort of evidence for extradition, and this likely falls pathetically short with our treaty with them. This case is likely over. Italy can put on a show, but it is heavily unlikely they can force extradition.

gut;1414937 wrote:But I'm not sure that's for an American court to decide. This case was ordered back to the appellate court, so that's really a distinction from double jeopardy. We'll have to see what the exact ruling is, but as of right now it appears her ACQUITTAL has been vacated as improper. So double jeopardy wouldn't apply to a convict awaiting a new trial.

Now, would any US judge facing re-election send her back to Italy? Probably not. I'm not sure of the extradition process, but one would imagine they do weigh the facts of the case in their decision.

The judge specifically ordered a NEW trial.

"It's not as if the lower-court convictions are revived," he said, noting that the Cassation Court didn't pronounce "whether the two were innocent or guilty. "

It's a 3rd trial.

gut;1414940 wrote:So again it's a divergence of the processes. But the fact remains she has not been acquitted - if you're going to draw parallels to the appellate process here it's been kicked back for review. Double/triple jeopardy or whatever you want to call it is apples and oranges. She was convicted, their process grants an automatic appeal, which happens to be another trial...there's a problem with that appelate decision. She is not back to square one - it's back to that appellate court.

No, it has not been kicked back for review. A WHOLE NEW TRIAL has been ordered. It doesn't turn to apples and oranges when it is a US justice that has to approve and order extradition. They would be sending her back for triple jeopardy.

So basically, Italy can do whatever they want. Say they find her guilty and sentance her to 30 years. They then have to order an extradition. Then the U.S. courts basically get to rule on the case, because international extradition is an actual hearing with the district court. They will basically then make a ruling on the case. After that, the Secretary of State has the final say and can basically vacate the extradition order if they please. Because of double jeopardy laws in the U.S. and how shady the case is, there is now talk that Italy may not even attempt extradition no matter the outcome. I honestly think they are afraid of the SoS telling them to fuck off.

LJ;1414942 wrote:The judge specifically ordered a NEW trial.

That's not what I'm reading - the entirety of the ruling hasn't been released. He has ordered it back to the appelate court, which by its nature is a new trial but it is not a new new trial, for lack of a better term. Her lawyers will scream double jeopardy to win the PR battle (it will be one of their key arguments against extradition, if it comes to that), but from my perspective this is the appeals process and double jeopardy just doesn't apply.

"Judge Saverio Chieffi told the court he would publish the reasoning behind his decision within 90 days, after which the parties would have 45 days to present their case. The retrial is not expected until sometime early next year, to be heard in an appellate court in Florence."

Your quote, by the way, is from the lawyer of one of the defendants.

gut;1414949 wrote:That's not what I'm reading - the entirety of the ruling hasn't been released. He has ordered it back to the appelate court, which by its nature is a new trial but it is not a new new trial, for lack of a better term.

"Judge Saverio Chieffi told the court he would publish the reasoning behind his decision within 90 days, after which the parties would have 45 days to present their case. The retrial is not expected until sometime early next year, to be heard in an appellate court in Florence."

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal against the judgement before the Corte d'Appello (Court of Appeals), that will retry the defendant.

It's not like our appeals court where they look at the trial then make a decision. It's a 2nd trial. The appeal itself is a whole new trial. Just because it is going back to the court of appeals, doesn't mean it isn't a whole new trial.

No idea how that isn't what you are reading

Italy's highest criminal court ordered a whole new trial for Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend on Tuesday

Because it's pretty clear that's what everything says
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

LJ;1414953 wrote:It's not like our appeals court where they look at the trial then make a decision. It's a 2nd trial. The appeal itself is a whole new trial. Just because it is going back to the court of appeals, doesn't mean it isn't a whole new trial.

No idea how that isn't what you are reading

Because it's pretty clear that's what everything says
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

Once again, it's clear as day - the quote FROM THE RULING JUDGE has sent it back to an APPELLATE court.

It's still an appeal - don't try to make it something different just because they conduct their appeals differently...it is something entirely different and distinct from intent and letter of double jeopardy in the US.

gut;1414958 wrote:it is something entirely different and distinct from intent and letter of double jeopardy in the US.

It's entirely different in that the concept doesn't seem to exist there. It has nothing to do with what an appeal looks like, and everything to do with an acquital being the end of the road in the U.S.

gut;1414958 wrote:Once again, it's clear as day - the quote FROM THE RULING JUDGE has sent it back to an APPELLATE court.

It's still an appeal - don't try to make it something different just because they conduct their appeals differently...it is something entirely different and distinct from intent and letter of double jeopardy in the US.

yeah, no

Italy's highest criminal court ordered a whole new trial for Amanda Knox

Italy's highest criminal court on Tuesday overturned Amanda Knox's acquittal in the slaying of her British roommate and ordered a new trial

after Italian Supreme Court judges ruled Tuesday she should stand trial again

U.S. officials might reject such a request because it violates the U.S. legal principle that a criminal defendant can't be tried twice on the same allegation, said Joey Jackson, a contributor for HLN's "In Session."
Italy lacks the absolute prohibition present in U.S. law preventing authorities from retrying a criminal defendant who has been acquitted of a charge.
"We have principles that are well-founded within our Constitution, one of which is double jeopardy," Jackson said. "So as a result of that, I think it would be highly objectionable for the United States to surrender someone to another country for which justice has already been administered and meted out. So I don't think or anticipate that that would happen."

The Court of Appeals is who would be hearing the 3rd trial. You are right, their appeals are entirely different, because they are not appeals. They are NEW TRIALS.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal against the judgement before the Corte d'Appello (Court of Appeals), that will retry the defendant.

You keep trying to talk about how the process is different, then you go on to confuse the 2 processes. Their appeals would be considered a new trial in our court system. PERIOD. Our court system is who rules on extradition.

No, it's a not. For like the fifth time, a NEW TRIAL, as it relates to double jeopardy, would go back to the original court, not the appellate court. She was convicted, and then improperly acquitted. No different in the US when a criminal gets a new trial - the conviction isn't thrown out beforehand so then the felon can throw up their arms "double jeopardy, I'm free!"

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.

So, in fact, Italy has double jeopardy in the sense you are talking about. But this being the APPEALS process, it's different. And it would be an inherent contradiction to claim double jeopardy based on US law, because you'd be recognizing her acquittal in the appelate process while then rejecting the full course of that appellate process.

I think this says it all:

"If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition," Carlo Dalla Vedova, another lawyer for Knox, told the news service. In that scenario, the United States would have to agree to extradite her.

That would seem unlikely since it violates the U.S. legal principle of double jeopardy preventing someone from being tried twice for the same crime. But Vedova told the New York Times it does not apply in this case because there had been no final ruling."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/amanda-knox-return-italy-stand-trial-180237891.html

gut;1414977 wrote:No, it's a not. For like the fifth time, a NEW TRIAL, as it relates to double jeopardy, would go back to the original court, not the appellate court. She was convicted, and then improperly acquitted. No different in the US when a criminal gets a new trial - the conviction isn't thrown out beforehand so then the felon can throw up their arms "double jeopardy, I'm free!"

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.

The issue is not how the Italian courts see it, it's how the AMERICAN courts see it. This IS a NEW TRIAL in the U.S. law standards

The government is not permitted to appeal or try again after the entry of an acquittal, whether a directed verdict before the case is submitted to the jury,[SUP][45][/SUP] a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,[SUP][46][/SUP] an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by direct appeal to a higher appellate court),[SUP][47][/SUP] or an "implied acquittal" via conviction of a lesser included offence.[SUP][48][/SUP] In addition, the government is barred by collateral estoppel from re-litigating against the same defence a fact necessarily found by the jury in a prior acquittal,[SUP][49][/SUP] even if the jury hung on other counts.

For like the fifth time, it doesn't matter how the Italian system works, it matters how their system works as it applies to our laws when it comes to extradition.

She was acquitted, which by U.S. law, means that them trying it again, whether it be in an appeals court, the Supreme court, or the original court, is double jeopardy.

Here, let me post it again

The government is not permitted to appeal or try again after the entry of an acquittal