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.
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.
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 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)
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 stand corrected - I had thought she was acquitted.
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.
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.
The appeal was announced the day that her conviction was overturned. It was absolutely obvious the whole time that it wasn’t over yet.
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.
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?
The cases **Bricker **is citing are about vacating convictions, or declaring mistrials. In none of them does the appeals court order an acquittal.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.