# Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent victims of a rush to judgment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474 "2009-10-12T01:39:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/241 "2015-03-25T05:59:23Z")
There is no Reader’s Digest version, best I can tell. **Bricker** does a really good job at explaining the issues in that longer thread, and I would hesitate to try to summarise his excellent commentary. The one comment I would add is that part of the issue is that the common law model of a court trial is not the same as a civil law model. In the common law model, the trial verdict is the end of the proceedings. An appeal is a separate proceeding, in another court. In the civil system, there is not that sharp demarcation; the equivalent term there is “process”, not trial, and the findings of the first court are not necessarily final within that system; the process can continue in another court. The common law concept of double jeopardy is based, not surprisingly, on the common law trial system, where jeopardy is determined in the trial court. That concept of a of clear ending does not translate so well to a court system where proceedings are not final in the first court. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/242 "2015-03-25T08:45:56Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Gimme the reader’s digest version. Does the USA’s extradition treaty with Italy permit extradition into what the American justice system would consider double jeopardy? Why would the US consider the Knox case “double jeopardy”? She was convicted at her original trial. Which is what **Bricker** has stated multiple times in many threads. There are two SCOTUS cases on that issue from what I can find Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 and Bryan v US 335 US 552. In \*Francis \*it was said at pg 462 > [@](#): > > where the accused successfully seeks review of a conviction, there is no double jeopardy upon a new trial ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/243 "2015-03-25T09:34:24Z")
But there was a second trial, wasn’t there? In which she was acquitted. Now, it’s a case of the \*accuser \*successfully seeking review of an _acquittal_, which I believe is covered by double jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/244 "2015-03-25T10:51:54Z")
No. The proceedings went like Trial Court: Convicted Intermediate Appeals Court: Reversed Ultimate Appeals Court: Set aside the reversal and remanded for new trial. I am not an American Lawyer. But looking at the _dicta_ in the SC cases, if relief is obtained by review subsequent trials are permitted no matter what the nature or standard/scope of review. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/245 "2015-03-25T11:10:14Z")
How does a reversal of a conviction differ from an acquittal? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/246 "2015-03-25T11:47:40Z")
Generally an acquittal means that the trier of fact is not satisfied that the case was proved while a reversal by a higher court means that there were errors which individually or cumulatively made the conviction unsafe, these could be procrdural mistakes, misreading of the record, insufficiency of evidence etc. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/247 "2015-03-25T12:34:58Z")
And, the term acquittal is itself a common law term, meaning a final disposition by the first court. That concept does not fit well into analysing a process in the civil law system, because as soon as you use it to try to describe a step in the civil law process, you are inadvertently importing related concepts from the common law. This is one if the hazards of comparative law discussions: one must be careful not to try to analogise between the two systems, because it can distort the understanding of the issues. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/248 "2015-03-25T12:43:22Z")
Similarly, the term “trier of fact” used by **AK84** in the previous post is a common law term. Courts in the civil law system don’t draw that distinction, because it is so closely tied to the common law concept of a trial court with final verdict. In the civil law system, in the process that can span different courts, facts can be re-examined or supplemented on appeal. The danger of relying on common law terminology when looking at the civil court system in a case like this is that it unconsciously drives the debate, so it really becomes a statement, “This court system produced a result that wouldn’t happen in ours, so it must be wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/249 "2015-03-25T18:32:36Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > But looking at the _dicta_ in the SC cases, if relief is obtained by review subsequent trials are permitted no matter what the nature or standard/scope of review. Nope. Generally true, to be sure, but there are instances in which it’s not. Most notably, when the review and reversal turn on a lack of sufficient evidence – that is, as a matter of law, if the trial court did not have enough evidence to convict, then double jeopardy bars retrial. However, the warnings in **Northern Piper** ’s posts about terminology are well taken. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/250 "2015-03-25T18:57:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The danger of relying on common law terminology when looking at the civil court system in a case like this is that it unconsciously drives the debate, so it really becomes a statement, “This court system produced a result that wouldn’t happen in ours, so it must be wrong.” That it wouldn’t happen in ours is not some random quirk, it is a deliberate design decision. By holding a person in legal limbo you are doing harm to them, and the government has a moral responsibility to minimise that harm. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/251 "2015-03-25T19:11:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. Generally true, to be sure, but there are instances in which it’s not. Most notably, when the review and reversal turn on a lack of sufficient evidence – that is, as a matter of law, if the trial court did not have enough evidence to convict, then double jeopardy bars retrial. > > However, the warnings in **Northern Piper** ’s posts about terminology are well taken. Thanks. But does a reversal bar a subsequent appeal to a still higher Court, and setting aside of reversal? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/252 "2015-03-28T02:55:58Z")
[ > [@](#): > > Amanda Knox, who maintained that she and her former Italian boyfriend were innocent in her British roommate’s murder through multiple trials and nearly four years in jail, was vindicated Friday when Italy’s highest court threw out their convictions once and for all. > [@](#): > > The surprise decision definitively ends the 7 1/2-year legal battle waged by Knox, 27, and co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito, 31, to clear their names in the gruesome 2007 murder and sexual assault of British student Meredith Kercher. > > The supreme Court of Cassation panel deliberated for 10 hours before declaring that the two did not commit the crime, a stronger exoneration than merely finding insufficient evidence to convict. ]([http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU\_ITALY\_KNOX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-27-22-31-38](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_ITALY_KNOX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-27-22-31-38)) Congratulations to both Miss Knox and Mr. Sollecito! I hope you both have long, happy and productive lives and this all becomes a distant memory. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/253 "2015-03-30T18:22:26Z")
Who handles the NEXT appeal? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/254 "2015-03-30T18:36:49Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [url=[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU\_ITALY\_KNOX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-27-22-31-38](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_ITALY_KNOX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-27-22-31-38)] > Congratulations to both Miss Knox and Mr. Sollecito! I hope you both have long, happy and productive lives and this all becomes a distant memory. Wonder if they have any recourse for the wrong done them? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/255 "2015-03-30T20:35:55Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Who handles the NEXT appeal? Yeah, despite assurances to the contrary, there’s that tiny nagging doubt that somehow, someway, the shenanigans of the Italian judicial system will find a way to revive this stinking corpse. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/256 "2015-03-30T23:35:13Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > > Who handles the NEXT appeal? > > Yeah, despite assurances to the contrary, there’s that tiny nagging doubt that somehow, someway, the shenanigans of the Italian judicial system will find a way to revive this stinking corpse. Or some reprehensible charlatan will convince the Kerchers that he has the magic formula which will lead to justice for their daughter. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/257 "2015-03-31T00:05:48Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Wonder if they have any recourse for the wrong done them? Multi-year court cases are not exactly unheard of. You generally don’t get compensated just because you were eventually not convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/258 "2015-03-31T02:31:52Z")
What if you were the victim of a literal witch hunt by a prosecutor who sees Satanists everywhere, enabled by “progressive” morons in your own country who froth at the notion of taking an American down a peg? This case isn’t just about “someone got acquitted of a charge.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/259 "2015-03-31T06:09:37Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > What if you were the victim of a literal witch hunt by a prosecutor who sees Satanists everywhere, **enabled by “progressive” morons in your own country who froth at the notion of taking an American down a peg**? This case isn’t just about “someone got acquitted of a charge.” Who are you referring to in the part that I bolded? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/260 "2015-03-31T14:03:49Z")
Can they be charged again as zombies rather than witches? How about vampires? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474.md?page=14)