The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:55 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
Amanda Knox and Double Jeopardy

Amanda Knox's acquittal has been overturned by an Italian court. If, as seems likely to happen, a request is made that she be extradited from the US to Italy for a retrial, would her (US) Constitutional right to not be subject to double jeopardy override any extradition treaties between the two countries?

I know that US laws and rights have no standing in Italy. My question, and implicit point, though, is whether US authorities and courts would facilitate what would be a violation of Knox's Constitutional rights had things occurred in the US.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:13 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
From what I can see is that the Italian Court of Cassation has set aside the Court of Appeals decision and remanded it back to that Court. I don't think that violates Double Jeopardy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:48 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
According to the NYT article linked to above, "Italy’s highest court on Tuesday overturned a previous acquittal and ordered a new trial in the sensational case of Amanda Knox, . . . " (emphasis added)

Would not the "new trial" suggest that there is about to be double jeopardy?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:57 AM
subspace subspace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
I don't think it has any bearing on her extradition. If the US government could only extradite people to countries that incorporate the Bill of Rights into their legal system, then it wouldn't be able to extradite anyone anywhere. She hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, and will not be tried by her peers, so those would be other reasons to refuse her extradition.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:01 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
My question, and implicit point, though, is whether US authorities and courts would facilitate what would be a violation of Knox's Constitutional rights had things occurred in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subspace View Post
I don't think it has any bearing on her extradition. If the US government could only extradite people to countries that incorporate the Bill of Rights into their legal system, then it wouldn't be able to extradite anyone anywhere.
There's a difference between could be violated and would be violated. If she had been indicted on a fresh murder charge, then extradition would not raise a constitutional issue.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:01 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
Part of what motivated me to ask is the (admittedly stretched) similarity to those cases where my country, Canada, refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty in the extraditing country. In other words, because that country's possible actions are at odds with our laws and sensibilities, we refuse to comply with the request.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 03-26-2013 at 08:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:03 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
There's a difference between could be violated and would be violated. If she had been indicted on a fresh murder charge, then extradition would not raise a constitutional issue.
Are you saying there is a constitutional issue?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:08 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,313
I don't know the facts of the extradition claim very well. I'm just saying that claiming that if a particular extradition definitely would be directly facilitating the violation of an American constitutional right, that is a different story than saying "well, how can we extradite anyone to any country because it's possible that they'd also receive treatment that would run afoul of our constitution if it were incorporated there."

Last edited by Ludovic; 03-26-2013 at 08:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:12 AM
subspace subspace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I don't know the facts of the extradition claim very well. I'm just saying that claiming that if a particular extradition definitely would be directly facilitating the violation of an American constitutional right, that is a different story than saying "well, how can we extradite anyone to any country because it's possible that they'd also receive treatment that would run afoul of our constitution if it were incorporated there."
Would her extradition also definitely be a violation of her right to be tried for murder only after indictment by a grand jury?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:34 AM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
I'm surprised that the first appeal resulted in an acquittal instead of a demand for retrial, or simply declaring a mistrial.

To my reading, getting a new trial after acquittal is a violation of double jeopardy. The EU has double jeopardy protections, but allow new trials if there is a "fundamental defect" in the original case. Honestly, I figure that "the prosecutors did a horrible job" should not count as a defect. The text also includes the term "finally acquitted" which maybe Knox wasn't, which might explain why the appeals decision was acquittal instead of mistrial. Maybe the appeals court can only give non-final acquittals.

linky poo
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-26-2013, 09:57 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
It's difficult to draw precise parallels between Italian and American criminal procedure.

But if it helps, remember that Knox was first convicted at the trial court. If that happened here in the U.S., and an intermediate appellate court overturned her conviction -- and perhaps even on grounds that forbid retrial, such as insufficiency of the evidence -- a higher appellate court could reinstate the conviction, or even remand for a new trial -- that is, overturn the guilty verdict because of errors at trial, but allow a new trial by not finding an insufficiency of the evidence.

So while the Italian system is different, and the use of "acquittal" doesn't carry the same implications it does here, the general series of events could happen here: guilty at the trial court; conviction overturned and no retrial possible as an order from the intermediate appellate court; retrial ordered by the final appellate authority.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-26-2013, 10:39 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
That was very helpful. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:46 AM
bordelond bordelond is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
FWIW, I've read on another board that Knox absolutely, positively does not have to go back to Italy to stand (re-)trial. Has it already been firmly established that the U.S. will not extradite Knox, or are some people just talking out of their rear ends.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:53 AM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
I think that is correct, because of specifics in extradition norms and Italian law I don't think they can actually force her to come and be tried. But Italian law allows for trial in absentia, so they will try her whether she shows up or not. If convicted, they then absolutely can ask that the United States extradite her.

It's unclear if they will, though. I don't think the double jeopardy argument would prevent her from being extradited, but there are other problems I've heard about in regard to how this case was handled that might. U.S. doesn't require another country to exactly follow our legal principles, but if the court handling the extradition found some stuff it had serious problems with in how the Italian court handled the first trial or the retrial it could still refuse to extradite.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:56 AM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 8,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by subspace View Post
She hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, and will not be tried by her peers, so those would be other reasons to refuse her extradition.
*Nitpic* Where in the U.S. Bill of Rights does it say one has a right to be tried by ones peers?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-26-2013, 12:19 PM
Learjeff Learjeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
IANAL, but I believe that even in the US, if a trial is declared a mistrial, then the original trial effectively didn't happen and the case can be tried again. This isn't "double jeopardy".

According to the wikipedia article on DJ, regarding the EU,
Quote:
Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows reopening of a case in the event that new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings

Last edited by Learjeff; 03-26-2013 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-26-2013, 12:43 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
My recollection is that if there is prosecutorial misconduct causing the mistrial in the US, then double jeopardy does attach.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:01 PM
BrotherCadfael BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I think the double jeopardy claim would give the US authorities grounds to refuse extradition, but would not require them to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:09 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
I think the double jeopardy claim would give the US authorities grounds to refuse extradition, but would not require them to do so.
If this happened in the United States, do you believe it would constitute double jeopardy?

In what way is double jeopardy relevant to this case?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:12 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by subspace View Post
She hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, and will not be tried by her peers, so those would be other reasons to refuse her extradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
*Nitpic* Where in the U.S. Bill of Rights does it say one has a right to be tried by ones peers?
And where do we find a requirement of indictment by a grand jury before trial? Plenty of states don't use grand juries.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:13 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
My recollection is that if there is prosecutorial misconduct causing the mistrial in the US, then double jeopardy does attach.
Maybe, yes; it's certainly a claim that can be raised: that the mistrial was not a manifest necessity. But here, there was no mistrial: she was found guilty at the trial court.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:21 PM
Diceman Diceman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
I think the double jeopardy claim would give the US authorities grounds to refuse extradition, but would not require them to do so.
True, but as a practical matter, the concept of overturning an acquittal violates one of the most basic principles of American jurisprudence.

I think you'd have to do some serious hardcore judge-shopping to find a US judge willing to order Knox's extradition. And once you found one, the media would get involved, and about 5 minutes later the State Department would step in to block the extradition.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-26-2013, 01:41 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
True, but as a practical matter, the concept of overturning an acquittal violates one of the most basic principles of American jurisprudence.
Again I feel I must point out that Ms. Knox was not acquitted by the Italian trial court. She was convicted. It was an appeals court that overturned her conviction, and a higher appeals court that ordered a new trial -- a sequence of events which happens here in the United States on a somewhat regular basis and does not appear to violate any of the most basic principles of American jurisprudence.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-26-2013, 02:15 PM
gunnergoz gunnergoz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
I seem to recall that the US does not have an extradition treaty with Italy anyway. Can anyone here confirm or refute that?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-26-2013, 02:57 PM
Mike H Mike  H is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 325
According to this , we do, since 1984, which probably supplanted an earlier treaty.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:01 PM
suranyi suranyi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnergoz View Post
I seem to recall that the US does not have an extradition treaty with Italy anyway. Can anyone here confirm or refute that?
Refuted: (Warning: PDF)

http://internationalextraditionblog....1/03/italy.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:16 PM
Diceman Diceman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Again I feel I must point out that Ms. Knox was not acquitted by the Italian trial court. She was convicted. It was an appeals court that overturned her conviction, and a higher appeals court that ordered a new trial -- a sequence of events which happens here in the United States on a somewhat regular basis and does not appear to violate any of the most basic principles of American jurisprudence.
Her conviction was overturned two years ago. It's not like she just got out of jail last week. There has been no change in either facts or law that would suggest a reconsideration is appropriate. Any American court would consider the matter settled.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:24 PM
BrotherCadfael BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Again I feel I must point out that Ms. Knox was not acquitted by the Italian trial court. She was convicted. It was an appeals court that overturned her conviction, and a higher appeals court that ordered a new trial -- a sequence of events which happens here in the United States on a somewhat regular basis and does not appear to violate any of the most basic principles of American jurisprudence.
I stand corrected - I had thought she was acquitted.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:33 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Her conviction was overturned two years ago. It's not like she just got out of jail last week. There has been no change in either facts or law that would suggest a reconsideration is appropriate. Any American court would consider the matter settled.
Not true at all. In the United States, imagine this sequence:

2008 - Abe is convicted at trial
2010 - Abe's conviction is overturned by his state's intermediate appellate court, which also rules that Abe's conviction was based on insufficient evidence as a matter of law. Abe, they rule, cannot be retried. He is released. The state appeals this ruling.
2012 - The state supreme court overturns the intermediate appellate court, ruling that there was sufficient evidence, but does not reinstate the conviction. They vacate the conviction but remand for a new trial

2013 - Abe gets retried

What's so unusual about that?

What the hell are you talking about? Many appeals take two years in American courts.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:34 PM
Learjeff Learjeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Her conviction was overturned two years ago. It's not like she just got out of jail last week. There has been no change in either facts or law that would suggest a reconsideration is appropriate. Any American court would consider the matter settled.
Why? The same could happen in the US, up to the Supreme Court.

Not that I'd expect an American court to necessarily honor an extradition request. But why would they consider a lower court's ruling as "settled", when it's overturned by a higher court? Cases aren't overturned just because of changes in evidence or law.

Interesting point that prosecutorial misconduct might be a special case. I wouldn't know, but it sounds reasonable. That would kinda suck for a victim, if the perp gets off because the prosecutor was a jerk. But it's a far from perfect world.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:36 PM
kellner kellner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Her conviction was overturned two years ago. It's not like she just got out of jail last week. There has been no change in either facts or law that would suggest a reconsideration is appropriate. Any American court would consider the matter settled.
The appeal was announced the day that her conviction was overturned. It was absolutely obvious the whole time that it wasn't over yet.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-26-2013, 04:26 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Her conviction was overturned two years ago. It's not like she just got out of jail last week. There has been no change in either facts or law that would suggest a reconsideration is appropriate. Any American court would consider the matter settled.
I'll give you a real-life example.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 553 SE 2d 760 (Va. 2001):

On January 21, 1998, Herbert Williams, Jr., was convicted of robbery, use or display of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and wearing a mask in violation of Virginia law.

In September of 2000, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed Williams' conviction (Williams v. Com., 534 SE 2d 369, Va Ct App 2000). The Commonwealth of Virginia appealed this decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Over a year later, in November 2001, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling that Williams' conviction was proper.

This is not tremendously unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-26-2013, 04:47 PM
Mdcastle Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Part of what motivated me to ask is the (admittedly stretched) similarity to those cases where my country, Canada, refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty in the extraditing country. In other words, because that country's possible actions are at odds with our laws and sensibilities, we refuse to comply with the request.
Why was it that Canada (eventually) extradited Charles Ng then. Was it "Well, we don't believe in the death penalty for a drug deal gone south situation but this guy has it coming" or some legal technicality?

Last edited by Mdcastle; 03-26-2013 at 04:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-26-2013, 04:51 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 33,269
The cases Bricker is citing are about vacating convictions, or declaring mistrials. In none of them does the appeals court order an acquittal.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:21 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Not true at all. In the United States, imagine this sequence:

2008 - Abe is convicted at trial
2010 - Abe's conviction is overturned by his state's intermediate appellate court, which also rules that Abe's conviction was based on insufficient evidence as a matter of law. Abe, they rule, cannot be retried. He is released. The state appeals this ruling.
2012 - The state supreme court overturns the intermediate appellate court, ruling that there was sufficient evidence, but does not reinstate the conviction. They vacate the conviction but remand for a new trial

2013 - Abe gets retried
How is that not double jeopardy, though? If the original trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, I can understand how they might decide to reinstate the case and try Abe, a year or two later, but that's not the same thing, is it?

Last edited by Spectre of Pithecanthropus; 03-26-2013 at 05:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:26 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'll give you a real-life example.
And another:

In Maxwelll v. Commonwealth, 657 S.E.2d 499, the accused was convicted at trial. On appeal, the appellate panel found that the evidence against him at trial was insufficient.

Now, normally, when an appeals court finds an error at trial, they reverse and remand -- this means they tell the trial court it needs to hold another trial, this time without making whatever error was found on appeal.

But appeals based on sufficiency of the evidence are a special case. If an appeals court finds there was insufficient evidence at trial, double jeopardy comes into play -- the accused cannot be tried again because the correct result the first time should have been acquittal as a matter of law. So the result of the appellate ruling is essentially an acquittal: a reversal and DISMISSAL, not a remand for retrial. The Commonwealth can't retry someone under those circumstances, because the appeals court has decided that the original trial should have been an acquittal and now double jeopardy protects the accused.

But unlike an actual acquittal at trial, the Commonwealth can appeal -- and they did, to the full Court of Appeals, which reversed the appellate panel and reinstated the conviction.

Interestingly enough, the accused then took his own appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, which sided with him and again ordered a dismissal.

But the point is -- this kind of thing happens with fair frequency. And the timing between these kinds of decisions can easily be a couple of years.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-26-2013 at 05:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:29 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Part of what motivated me to ask is the (admittedly stretched) similarity to those cases where my country, Canada, refuses to extradite anyone who may face the death penalty in the extraditing country. In other words, because that country's possible actions are at odds with our laws and sensibilities, we refuse to comply with the request.
Canada reserves the right to refuse, but doesn't always, hence Charles Ng's current and well-deserved occupancy of a cell on California's death row.


Arguably, though, extraditing him actually extended his lifespan. Had he stayed in Canada and continued his violent criminal behavior, there's a nonzero chance he'd have been killed by now.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:31 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus View Post
How is that not double jeopardy, though? If the original trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, I can understand how they might decide to reinstate the case and try Abe, a year or two later, but that's not the same thing, is it?
It's not double jeopardy because his original trial ended with a conviction. That conviction was later judged to be legally flawed in some way, but that's a decision of law, subject to change by a higher appeals court.

if his original trial had ended with a jury acquittal (or a judge's acquittal at a bench trial), he'd be protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. But his acquittal came from the appellate judges; a higher appellate court can reverse it.

Bear in mind, too, that jeopardy attaches to a case when the jury is sworn in, or in a bench trial when the judge begins hearing evidence. If a trial judge dismisses a case before that happens, typically the prosecution is free to retry. After the case has begun, after the jury's sworn, then a dismissal has double jeopardy implications.

If a judge dismisses a case before the jury is sworn, he can say "with prejudice," but that decision is appealable.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-26-2013 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:36 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
Why was it that Canada (eventually) extradited Charles Ng then. Was it "Well, we don't believe in the death penalty for a drug deal gone south situation but this guy has it coming" or some legal technicality?
I recall one news show (might've been The Fifth Estate) that suggested the U.S. was prepared to call Canada's bluff, i.e. drop the extradition request and letting Canada realize that the guy we locked up on a felonious assault charge, the guy who made home movies of his rapes and murders, was going to get out and be free to roam Canadian streets in less than five years.

I have sympathy for victims of oppression and such but seriously, fuck that guy.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:03 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
Why was it that Canada (eventually) extradited Charles Ng then. Was it "Well, we don't believe in the death penalty for a drug deal gone south situation but this guy has it coming" or some legal technicality?
You know, Ng was one of the cases I was alluding to when I wrote that. I had been under the impression that Canada permitted his extradition only after the US had agreed to not seek the death penalty. I now realize that I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:43 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
It's not double jeopardy because his original trial ended with a conviction. That conviction was later judged to be legally flawed in some way, but that's a decision of law, subject to change by a higher appeals court.
I know, Wikipedia isn't evidence, but as I read this explanation the original trial need not have ended in conviction for double jeopardy to apply:

Quote:
The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[43] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.[44]
(If nothing else, I notice the writer misspelt "empaneled", but if I take your meaning aright, the Wikipedia explanation above is not quite correct.

Last edited by Spectre of Pithecanthropus; 03-26-2013 at 06:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:01 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus View Post
I know, Wikipedia isn't evidence, but as I read this explanation the original trial need not have ended in conviction for double jeopardy to apply:



(If nothing else, I notice the writer misspelt "empaneled", but if I take your meaning aright, the Wikipedia explanation above is not quite correct.
No, it's pretty much accurate. I didn't intend to list each and every protection the DJ clause offers. But when an appeals court overturns a conviction, that conviction no longer exists; the double jeopardy clause does not prevent a retrial in that circumstance.

If the original trial ends in acquittal by the fact-finder, then double jeopardy protection is essentially absolute. But there are other ways it can end in acquittal that do not necessarily trigger DJ protection. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge has the power to set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal, as a matter of law. That's also an acquittal, but the prosecution can appeal the judge's decision and an appellate court can reinstate the conviction.

If the trial ends in a conviction, then double jeopardy applies, in the sense that the accused may not be retried for the same crime....unless the accused appeals. By appealing, he is waiving his double jeopardy rights, essentially asking the court to erase the conviction. (There are certain issues that don't waive double jeopardy -- I mentioned "sufficiency of the evidence" above as a classic example. When the convicted appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient, he's saying that, as a matter of law, not only should he not have ever been convicted in the first place, but since the prosecution's evidence was not enough to allow any reasonable jury to convict, he should have been acquitted by the jury).
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:07 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Canada reserves the right to refuse, but doesn't always, hence Charles Ng's current and well-deserved occupancy of a cell on California's death row.
The Supreme Court of Canada has since made it pretty much impossible for Canada to do anything other than refuse.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 03-26-2013 at 07:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:11 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
The Supreme Court of Canada has since made it pretty much impossible for Canada to do anything other than refuse.
Well, I admit I'm not up on current extradition law. Do you have a specific cite?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-26-2013, 10:44 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by subspace View Post
I don't think it has any bearing on her extradition. If the US government could only extradite people to countries that incorporate the Bill of Rights into their legal system, then it wouldn't be able to extradite anyone anywhere. She hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, and will not be tried by her peers, so those would be other reasons to refuse her extradition.
On the other hand, you have one country that will be asking another country to extradite one of its citizens, and both countries have different legal systems. Isn't it around just these sorts of differences that the success or failure of extradition requests hinges? Presumably Italy would refuse to extradite one of its citizens to the U.S. if they could potentially receive the death penalty; so I'm not sure why Amanda Knox should be sent to Italy when she has already been convicted and sentenced. Italy had her in prison already, where she was looking at spending her entire life as a young adult and then some. Then they let her go. If they rue that decision now, that's too bad. Why should the Italian court get a do-over?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-27-2013, 12:21 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, I admit I'm not up on current extradition law. Do you have a specific cite?
The Burns case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Burns

It was decided about a decade after Ng. In Ng, the Court held that it was not a breach of the Charter if the federal government extradited without an assurance there would be no death penalty, so off Ng went to the death row in California.

In Burns, the Court reversed itself and held that in almost every case, it would be a Charter breach to extradite without an assurance of no death penalty.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-27-2013, 12:37 AM
Senegoid Senegoid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 7,812
In the Amanda Knox case, the widespread feeling (here in the USA anyway) seems to be that the case was horribly botched; prosecutorial misconduct; kangaroo court; blah blah.

Can the United States refuse to extradite Knox to Italy on the simple grounds that some hearing (in the US) decides that the Italian judicial process (at least in the Knox case) is a mockery of the judicial principles held here?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-27-2013, 05:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
In the Amanda Knox case, the widespread feeling (here in the USA anyway) seems to be that the case was horribly botched; prosecutorial misconduct; kangaroo court; blah blah.

Can the United States refuse to extradite Knox to Italy on the simple grounds that some hearing (in the US) decides that the Italian judicial process (at least in the Knox case) is a mockery of the judicial principles held here?
Oh sure they could. And then regret that decision for years as requests for extradition to Italy are met with a "no" and the US finds itself a haven for Italian fugitives,.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-27-2013, 08:32 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus View Post
On the other hand, you have one country that will be asking another country to extradite one of its citizens, and both countries have different legal systems. Isn't it around just these sorts of differences that the success or failure of extradition requests hinges? Presumably Italy would refuse to extradite one of its citizens to the U.S. if they could potentially receive the death penalty; so I'm not sure why Amanda Knox should be sent to Italy when she has already been convicted and sentenced. Italy had her in prison already, where she was looking at spending her entire life as a young adult and then some. Then they let her go. If they rue that decision now, that's too bad. Why should the Italian court get a do-over?
I think a lot of this arises from the differences in jargon between two different legal systems. We use the word "acquittal" with a certain degree of finality (although, as I have posted above, even with us it's not completely final) while the Italians seem to use it as the opposite of a conviction, synonymous with "dismissal."

But even in our system, we have had more than a few cases in which someone has been:

(a) convicted at trial
(b) sent to prison
(c) appealed to an intermediate appellate court
(d) won the appeal and been released from prison
(e) had the state appeal that ruling to the state supreme court
(f) lose the appeal at the state supreme court and be ordered to stand trial again or simply return to prison

So I don't think that the fact that Italy had her in prison and then released her entitles us to say, "Too bad." We do that too.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-27-2013, 08:49 AM
Mdcastle Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
The Diane Whipple dog mauling case is the one I recall offhand where the perp was let out of prison and then sent back due to legal proceedings.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.