gut;1414979 wrote: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

Vedova is an Italian attorney who is not versed in American law. Seriously, not just saying that.

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.

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.

She was acquitted. That's the point. Properly, improperly, otherwise, in the U.S., she is free.

LJ;1414982 wrote:Vedova is an Italian attorney who is not versed in American law. Seriously, not just saying that.

It's not double jeopardy, because she's not tried a second time for a crime she was acquitted of. How many times and ways does it need to be explained?

You're picking and choosing what parts of the law you will apply. Like I said, if you are going to accept her acquittal in the appeals process, then you have to respect the appeals process in its entirety.

queencitybuckeye;1414983 wrote:She was acquitted. That's the point. Properly, improperly, otherwise, in the U.S., she is free.

No, she was NOT acquitted. That has been annulled. The appellate ruling did not withstand further judicial review. You can't say the process acquitted her and then ignore the entirety of the process. She was convicted, and then it went to appeal. Reject or accept the appeals process in its entirety.

She was never acquitted, before or after the fact. That ruling was always subject to appeal, it was not final and binding, and now has been annulled.

gut;1414985 wrote:It's not double jeopardy, because she's not tried a second time for a crime she was acquitted of. How many times and ways does it need to be explained?

Did you read nothing I said. She was acquitted. By U.S. Law, THAT IS THE END OF THE LINE. How else can I explain it? I posted the law! It's pretty clear. Look at the OJ Simpson trial, or the Casey Anthony trial. They had a verdict of not guilty. This is no different. Once that verdict is entered, it's done. PERIOD.

gut;1414986 wrote:No, she was NOT acquitted. That has been annulled. The appellate ruling did not withstand further judicial review. You can't say the process acquitted her and then ignore the entirety of the process. She was convicted, and then it went to appeal. Reject or accept the appeals process in its entirety.

Their process does not matter in U.S. law! The U.S. courts have to extradite her! Not the Italian courts!

gut;1414986 wrote:No, she was NOT acquitted. That has been annulled. The appellate ruling did not withstand further judicial review. You can't say the process acquitted her and then ignore the entirety of the process. She was convicted, and then it went to appeal. Reject or accept the appeals process in its entirety.

Under the law that rules the extradition process, there's no such thing as an "annulled acquittal".

queencitybuckeye;1414989 wrote:Under the law that rules the extradition process, there's no such thing as an "annulled acquittal".

Exactly!

LJ;1414980 wrote:
Here, let me post it again
[INDENT]The government is not permitted to appeal or try again after the entry of an acquittal


[/INDENT]



[/B]

And let me say again, acquittal was never entered. She was found guilty, and then it went to the appellate process. By definition, she cannot be formally acquitted until that process is complete.

There is no double jeopardy when you've been convicted, that's what you're not getting. Additionally, you can be acquitted due to a technicality and double jeopardy does not prevent a retrial because the decisions was not resolved on merit (which is why it's also important to see the entirety of the ruling).

gut;1415000 wrote:And let me say again, acquittal was never entered. She was found guilty, and then it went to the appellate process. By definition, she cannot be formally acquitted until that process is complete.

There is no double jeopardy when you've been convicted, that's what you're not getting. Additionally, you can be acquitted due to a technicality and double jeopardy does not prevent a retrial because the decisions was not resolved on merit (which is why it's also important to see the entirety of the ruling).

:huh::huh::huh:

you just don't understand. I'm done. Everything in your first sentance is wrong, and has been proven so the past few pages

queencitybuckeye;1414989 wrote:Under the law that rules the extradition process, there's no such thing as an "annulled acquittal".

Doesn't matter. There was no acquittal. You can't accept a non-binding ruling as final, and then reject the final ruling. That's having your cake and eating it, too.

LJ;1415002 wrote::huh::huh::huh:

you just don't understand. I'm done. Everything in your first sentance is wrong, and has been proven so the past few pages

Except it's not - a ruling cannot be entered as final and binding when it is not. LMAO, disagree with her own lawyer and the judge. It's an appellate hearing, you've been proven wrong multiple times.

Italy has laws against double jeopardy, I'm not even sure where this is a debate.

gut;1415004 wrote:Doesn't matter. There was no acquittal.

Yes, there was. An appeal there doesn't remand, it determines guilt or innocence. She was acquitted.

gut;1415005 wrote:Except it's not. LMAO, disagree with her own lawyer and the judge. It's an appellate hearing, you've been proven wrong multiple times.

ITALIAN LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WHICH WILL DETERMINE EXTRADITION!!!!!! The Italian Lawyer and Italian Judge have nothing to do with this!

LJ;1414988 wrote:Their process does not matter in U.S. law! The U.S. courts have to extradite her! Not the Italian courts!

No shit sherlock. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not double jeopardy. She's not being tried anew for the same crime - she was convicted and going thru the appeals process.

I'm tired of the pissing around. Right in this argument is the side that wins. Bottom line, if she goes back, you're right. If she doesn't LJ and I are right.

She's not going back.

gut;1415009 wrote:No shit sherlock. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not double jeopardy. She's not being tried anew for the same crime - she was convicted and going thru the appeals process.

Dude, seriously. In US law the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. IF the acquittal came from appeal, prosecution can only appeal if the orig. verdict was overturned due to technicalities. This acquittal was due to lack of evidence,

In legal paperwork published in December 2011, the judge in the case wrote that the jury had cleared the pair of murder for lack of evidence proving they were guilty.

In U.S. law, this is treated as an acquittal that affords double jeopardy protection. In the eyes of the U.S. court system, this case was DONE in 2011!

LJ, Italian law expert. :laugh:

queencitybuckeye;1415006 wrote:Yes, there was. An appeal there doesn't remand, it determines guilt or innocence. She was acquitted.

Except she wasn't acquitted. She was convicted. You can't pick and choose that part of the appeals process that suits you. It's all still part of the original charges - no double jeopardy. This is far from the slam dunk you guys are making it out to be - based on the treaty language it actually sounds more of an uphill battle for her.

Besides which - this is why the decision matters in its entirety - if she was acquitted on technical or procedural issues, there's clearly no Double Jeopardy as such person could be re-tried in the US.

gut;1415022 wrote:Except she wasn't acquitted.

She was. The appeals courts in Italy do not remand the case, they re-try the case in its entirety to determine guilt or innocence. That verdict overrides the original court. That verdict was an acquittal.

I'll let you and LJ continue for another dozen pages if you wish. Again, who is right will ultimately be determined by what happens. Again, she's not going back. Does Vegas have betting on things like this?

LJ;1415014 wrote:Dude, seriously. In US law the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. IF the acquittal came from appeal, prosecution can only appeal if the orig. verdict was overturned due to technicalities. This acquittal was due to lack of evidence,



In U.S. law, this is treated as an acquittal that affords double jeopardy protection. In the eyes of the U.S. court system, this case was DONE in 2011!

That's great, except she wasn't acquitted under US law. You want to tangle the mess up to suit you. The problem is your argument is based on her being acquitted, but because she is being tried under Italian law and not US law, THERE WAS NO ACQUITTAL. You don't get to say "under US law, she was acquitted" because she was never tried under US law, it doesn't transfer. If she was acquitted, formally, you'd have a point. She wasn't acquitted.

I believe the treaty says something along the lines of we fundamentally accept there justice system. So you don't see a small problem there with recognizing a part of their appeals process that might acquit her, but reject the parts that might not?

So you can argue until you are blue in the face about US law, but the simple fact of the matter is she was not acquitted, neither under Italian law nor under US law.

And it might be all moot, because if it's a procedural or technical decision then there wouldn't be double jeopardy in the US in the first place.

gut;1415029 wrote:That's great, except she wasn't acquitted under US law. You want to tangle the mess up to suit you. The problem is your argument is based on her being acquitted, but because she is being tried under Italian law and not US law, THERE WAS NO ACQUITTAL. You don't get to say "under US law, she was acquitted" because she was never tried under US law, it doesn't transfer. If she was acquitted, formally, you'd have a point. She wasn't acquitted.

I believe the treaty says something along the lines of we fundamentally accept there justice system. So you don't see a small problem there with recognizing a part of their appeals process that might acquit her, but reject the parts that might not?

So you can argue until you are blue in the face about US law, but the simple fact of the matter is she was not acquitted, neither under Italian law nor under US law.

And it might be all moot, because if it's a procedural or technical decision then there wouldn't be double jeopardy in the US in the first place.

In legal paperwork published in December 2011, the judge in the case wrote that the jury had cleared the pair of murder for lack of evidence proving they were guilty.

And it is the U.S. justice system that has to extradite her based on our standards of double jeopardy. As QCB said, if there was Vegas betting, I would bet the house on extradition being denied.

queencitybuckeye;1415026 wrote: I'll let you and LJ continue for another dozen pages if you wish. Again, who is right will ultimately be determined by what happens. Again, she's not going back. Does Vegas have betting on things like this?

Again, you're picking and choosing parts of their system to try to overlay US law and fundamentally changing their process, which by treaty we accept.

She wasn't acquitted, not under Italian law or US law. That's a fact. Effectively they declared a mistrial, and there would be no double jeopardy in the US.

LJ;1415034 wrote:And it is the U.S. justice system that has to extradite her based on our standards of double jeopardy. As QCB said, if there was Vegas betting, I would bet the house on extradition being denied.

For political reasons, not procedural. The million dollar question is if it's double jeopardy as it relates to the treaty, and that's where it's quite a bit longer shot than you guys claim.

And you guys are ignoring the critical distinction with the appeals. Simply stated she is not being tried anew for a crime she was acquitted of - that's the standard, that's the intent. Their process is different, you can't interpolate an acquittal - she was not acquitted so you can't have double jeopardy.

Yes, if she were acquitted I agree with you, however she's not tried according to US law so she can only be acquitted according to Italian law. Double jeopardy as it relates to extradition would be their judicial process running its course, and then starting all over with her after she had been acquitted.

The US signed a treaty. They fundamentally accepted it - they did not reject that prosecutors can appeal decisions. It sounds like she really doesn't want to roll those dice.

queencitybuckeye;1415011 wrote:I'm tired of the pissing around. Right in this argument is the side that wins. Bottom line, if she goes back, you're right. If she doesn't LJ and I are right.

She's not going back.

I doubt she goes back because of politics and public support (which could change with the retrial, but doubtful), that's not going to prove you right. I'm not sure they'd even go down that road, but maybe instead focus on the evidence and fairness of a trial. Not sure which would be less offensive to the Italians. That might be the way to go - just copy/paste the appelate ruling, which trashed the first court, and say the process was hopelessly tainted and unfair at that point. Wouldn't even have to address double jeopardy, just review the appellate ruling and affirm the acquittal.

And the extradition treaty’s reference to double jeopardy may not be binding in some cases, [Alan Dershowitz] said. “In the United States, generally, when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights, and we permit retrials of people who have had their convictions reversed, at least on procedural grounds,” he said.