*Drumroll* Amanda Knox verdict coming up!

[Zanza]

Even if the US doesn't extradite her, she can probably never again travel with a guilty verdict as Italy would probably put her on some Interpol list.

[Jacob]

I did, and this still sounds like, in terms of fishing expeditions, it's gone from a hired boat in the local bay to a fleet of Japanese whalers.  Why would you even have a trial court handing out acquittals if its authority is automatically in question?

I know the Italians aren't exactly the shining light of fiscal responsibility, but I doubt even they spend the money on trying and retrying and retrying cases over and over again like this, unless somebody's got something big to lose.

If you had also read OvB's earlier post, he mentioned we can't legally extradite if it would violate a citizen's constitutional rights; overturning an acquittal would be double jeopardy here.

In the end, extraditions aren't cut-and-dry "will do this, must do that" situations.  There's a lot of negotiation that goes on as to who's best interests are served, and it seems painfully clear that someone's got an agenda here in prosecuting Knox.  The court hasn't released any reasoning for its decision, but the evidence was successfully challenged.  At best, this means someone withheld substantial evidence during the trial.  At worst, somebody stands to walk out of this with so much egg on their face, that they're going to try again and again until they can get her back behind bars and away from interviews.

Ah... you read it, you just missed the point.

Carry on.

[DontSayBanana]

Raz, Jacob: results of a quick Google for you- it would almost definitely be denied.  Page 14:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-958.pdf

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

[dps]

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

Raz, the article that DontSayBanana posted the link to isn't in legalese.

[DontSayBanana]

TIAS 10837

ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been
convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence
imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which
extradition is requested.

Ah, and I just found it.  Not a snowball's chance in hell Italy could extradite her.  This is direct text from the extradition treaty between Italy and the US.

Go fish.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.

Raz, the article that DontSayBanana posted the link to isn't in legalese.

I meant I didn't know before hand.  I read the part Banana posted.

[Zanza]

TIAS 10837

ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been
convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence
imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which
extradition is requested.

Ah, and I just found it.  Not a snowball's chance in hell Italy could extradite her.  This is direct text from the extradition treaty between Italy and the US.

Go fish.

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that just exclude extradition by the US for a crime in which the US has already tried the person? "Requested Party" refers to the USA, Italy would be the "Requesting Party", no?

[CountDeMoney]

What's really concerning about the Italian justice system is the prosecutors do not appear to operate within the bounds of justice and just randomly prosecute stuff for crazy reasons (geologists not predicting earthquakes) and are allowed to try stuff that wouldn't fly here (ignore physical evidence and suggests a defendant is a witch) and the courts actually seem to allow it. I still don't know if Knox did it but the evidence against her was quite weak, and I doubt she'd have been convicted under American law.

I suppose if you can collect DNA evidence 6 weeks after the event from a crime scene that's no longer a crime scene without even a nod to chain of custody, then I guess you can pretty much make up the rest as you go along.  I bet BB would love that kind of latitude in sending drunken Eskimos to the chair.

[DontSayBanana]

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that just exclude extradition by the US for a crime in which the US has already tried the person? "Requested Party" refers to the USA, Italy would be the "Requesting Party", no?

Er, yeah, you're right.  I was in a hurry to post the slam dunk.

OvB's point was actually Article II of the treaty, which seems more likely to kick in.

ARTICLE II
Extraditable Offenses

1. An offense/ however denominated, shall be an extraditable
offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting
Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year
or by a more severe penalty. When the request for extradition
relates to a person who has been sentenced/ extradition shall be
granted only if the duration of the penalty still to be served
amounts to at least six months.

2. An offense shall also be an extraditable offense if it
consists of an attempt to commit, or participation in the commission
of, an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article. Any type
of association to commit offenses described in paragraph 1 of this
Article, as provided by the laws of Italy, and conspiracy to commit
an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article, as provided by
the laws of the United States, shall also be extraditable offenses.

3* When extradition has been granted foe an extraditable
offense, it shall also be granted for any other offense specified in
the request ever. 1C tne lather offense is punishable by less than
one year's deprivation of liberty, provided that; all other
requirements for extradition are met.

It's less cut-and-dry, but since it hinges on the offense being an offense in both jurisdictions, we could argue that since she was acquitted, it's no longer a valid offense in the United States.

[Zanza]

That article just says that e.g. the US would never extradite someone to Germany for Holocaust Denial because that's not an offense in the US. Knox is accused of murder, which is clearly an offense under both Italian and American law, so I don't see why that article would apply to this case. The definition of the offense has nothing to do with whether the US jurisdiction acknowledges the Italian appellate process as double jeopardy or not.

EDIT: confused about jurisdiction and jurisprudence. 

[dps]

That article just says that e.g. the US would never extradite someone to Germany for Holocaust Denial because that's not an offense in the US. Knox is accused of murder, which is clearly an offense under both Italian and American law, so I don't see why that article would apply to this case. The definition of the offense has nothing to do with whether the US jurisdiction acknowledges the Italian appellate process as double jeopardy or not.

EDIT: confused about jurisdiction and jurisprudence. 

Yes, clearly there was a murder.  That's obviously a valid offense under the treaty.  The posted Article still leaves it an open question as whether or not a US court would view the Italian procedures as violating due process.

[Zanza]

The general underlying premise of an extradition treaty is that both parties assume that due process is upheld in the other parties' trials. Otherwise an extradition makes no sense. Of course in exceptional cases that may not be a given and then the person to be extradited should have the possibility to appeal against an extradition decision of the executive through the courts of the extraditing country.

[derspiess]

Even if the US doesn't extradite her, she can probably never again travel with a guilty verdict as Italy would probably put her on some Interpol list.

So she'll be like most Americans and not travel abroad, big whoop.  I'm sure she'd prefer that to doing time.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure it would even go on interpol.  Doesn't Spain indict people from other countries for things like war crimes?