Amanda Knox will never be extradited by the US Government, regardless of the Italian Court's ruling

[MADem]

Extradition treaties are in the nature of a contract and generate the most controversy with respect
to those matters for which extradition may not be had. In addition to an explicit list of crimes for
which extradition may be granted, most modern extradition treaties also identify various classes
of offenses for which extradition may or must be denied. Common among these are provisions
excluding purely military and political offenses; capital offenses; crimes that are punishable under
only the laws of one of the parties to the treaty; crimes committed outside the country seeking
extradition; crimes where the fugitive is a national of the country of refuge; and crimes barred by
double jeopardy or a statute of limitations.

....Depending on the treaty, extradition may also be denied on the basis of a number of procedural
considerations. Although the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against successive prosecutions for
the same offense does not extend to prosecutions by different sovereigns, it is common for
extradition treaties to contain clauses proscribing extradition when the transferee would face
double punishment and/or double jeopardy (also known as non bis in idem).67 The more historic
clauses are likely to bar extradition for a second prosecution of the “same acts” or the “same
event” rather than the more narrowly drawn “same offenses.”68 The new model limits the
exemption to fugitives who have been convicted or acquitted of the same offense and specifically
denies the exemption where an initial prosecution has simply been abandoned.69




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


The Italians have had their "bite of the apple" with Miss Knox. She has been acquitted upon appeal. We will not compel her to reappear to be charged, yet again, for a crime for which she has been acquitted.

She's home, and home she will stay. She'd be advised not to return to Italy, though, at least not until the acquittal is upheld--just to be on the safe side.

[joeybee12]

1. She should avoid Great Britain also...people don't realize that the most lurid stories

about all this originated in the British tabloids.

[ret5hd]

2. I'd kinda be surprised if she ventures much past her front lawn for a while.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. What she should be doing is building a strategy of where to go

if things go badly and the Italian government tries to extradite her.

IIRC the current rules are such that the US will not extradite from county A so country B could then extradite from the US.

[MADem]

3. Well, since the victim was a Brit, they had a vested interest in finding someone

they could relate to upon whom to lay the blame. Amanda Knox fit the bill, and was probably payback for Louise "Shake that Baby" Woodward of years gone by....

Refresher here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

[Bryn]

6. I looked at facts. Rudy acted alone. His DNA was all over ...

on the victim, in her, on her purse, etc. Amanda and Raffaele's DNA just wasn't there. Why can't Meredith's family see that? Rudy's 30 year sentence got reduced to just 16 after he pointed to Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. Originally he had said they weren't there.

Amanda had a bad luck that door to Meredith's room was locked. Otherwise the story would have been a huge difference, perhaps. She didn't know there was a dead body in that room though she noticed that the front door was open when she came home after spending the night with Raffaele, continued on to take a shower even after noticing small blood stains, thought they were no big deal. Then went to get Raffaele because of that front door open and small blood stains, and they both called the police, but got caught in their horrible spider web.

She did not point to the innocent man she worked for. It was all framed by the police. It all started when the police found "see you later.." text on her phone to her boss and took it the wrong way. They kept her up all right, no food, no water, pushing her to point to him. A female police kept slapping her on the back of her head. From 10pm to 6am!

Anyone with common sense would have seen that they weren't involved and that Rudy acted alone! To DUers who think Amanda/Raffaele are guilty, please don't be like conservatives who can't be reasoned with. Look at facts, not twisted gossips/stories. Even a well known FBI profiler, John Douglas, (he started FBI profiling) said that they weren't involved.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

9. There was a multi-million dollar civil suit pending. While Amanda's

parents are financially devastated, Raffaele's family is very rich and there's always the potential
revenue from movie rights, books etc. The victim's family and especially the lawyers were
banking on that judgement.

[flamingdem]

28. Ugh. You mean the family of the victim was after Raffaele's family dough?

That's too gross.

[whathehell]

4. Good for her. n/t

[Hosnon]

5. The appeal by the prosecution wouldn't constitute double jeopardy. nt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Quite right

Like just about everything international, this is a area with a lot of nuance. However, before it ever comes up, the Italian supreme court as to roll in and reverse the appeal in some manner. That is 6+ months away. Until then much of the posting is just showing ignorance

[MADem]

13. There is zero nuance when it comes to extradition treaties.

We would not send her back.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Actually there is a great deal of nuance. And there are clearly circumstances where we would.

[MADem]

25. Not in a criminal case.

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

If she's acquitted, she's acquitted in our courts. And that's the standard we use.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. I suggest you talk to someone who has actually worked such cases

You will find your absolutist stand is not supportable

[MADem]

34. Well, I am not the only one with that POV, but go on and hold that thought if you'd like

Four citations in opposition to your assertion:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/10/q-a--would-the-US-extradite-amanda-knox-back-to-italy

The prosecution says they’ll take this to Italy’s highest appeals tribunal. If you’re her attorney, what do you advise?

If I were Amanda, I would let the prosecutor do what the prosecutor is going to do—and stay far, far away from Italy. The reason they hustled her out of Italy very fast is because he’s out for blood now—he’s out for revenge and he wants her behind bars. And in Italy, there is no double jeopardy—you’re allowed to protest and go to the highest court saying, “I know she was ruled innocent but actually she’s not.” She has to stay away, and almost certainly the U.S. will not comply with any extradition request from Italy, if there is one, which itself is dubious. With an extradition request, you have to show evidence or guilt—and the evidence was all contaminated.

a true "Scotsman" concurs: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/17903/Prosecutors-to-appeal-Knox-verdict.6847880.jp

Prosecutors to appeal Knox verdict but she'll never be extradited

...The highest court's remit is to rule on whether any procedures were violated and the hearing generally takes one day in Rome. Defendants are not required to attend.

If the highest court overturns the acquittal, prosecutors would be free to request Knox's extradition to Italy to finish whatever remained of her sentence.

It would be up to the Italian government to decide whether to make a formal extradition request, but it is thought unlikely that Knox would ever be sent back to Italy over the charges.


As does BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15191460


The prosecution, which maintains Miss Kercher was killed in a brutal sex game which went wrong, is to appeal to Italy's highest court over the acquittals.

However, it appears unlikely that Knox would be extradited back to Italy from the US.

One more (though there's a zillion of 'em out there....)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/04/knox-acquittal-only-possible-verdict

Acquittal was the only possible, rational verdict. Knox got out of Italy as fast as her family and friends could get her away. While the prosecutors may formally appeal to the Italian supreme court, the case is essentially over and Knox will never be extradited back to Italy from the US.
About 50% of all criminal convictions in Italy are reversed or greatly modified on appeal. Knox and Sollecito join the 4 million Italians since the war who have seen their lives ruined by false criminal charges, only to be proclaimed innocent after many years of agony and imprisonment.

While they don't like others pointing it out, many Italians are well aware that their judicial system is dysfunctional. Silvio Berlusconi is absolutely right when he says the judiciary needs fundamental reform. The Italian judiciary, a holdover to a great extent from the Mussolini era, when Italy was a police state, acts with no checks and balances, in which prosecutors and police wield enormous power.

If you are arrested for a crime and have no alibi, you are in very serious trouble. The de facto burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence, despite lip service in the Italian constitution to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

The Italian justice system often seems more concerned with preserving the honour and reputations of powerful individuals than with finding the truth. This, in a nutshell, explains why Knox and Sollecito were not released when Guede was identified, why dubious DNA and forensic lab work was relied upon, why prosecutors and police leaked so much damaging and salacious information to the press, and why these two innocent young people spent 1,450 days in prison for murder they did not commit. It was all about honour, reputation, and the saving of face.



She's home--and she will not be extradited, no matter what the Italian court decides.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. I have an unfair advangtage here having been married to a FSO

and still knowing many active members...their comments are uniformly that it would depend on a lot of details and find the net based absolutist declarations amusing.

Again at this point it is very doubtful it will even come up

[MADem]

39. And what murder trial, adjudicated twice, did your FSO find themselves involved in

where the person was extradited back to the convicting nation after being returned home following a successful appeal?

Surely there would be some media attached to such an incredible event. Give us a name so we can do a Google.

The point isn't that it would be "doubtful it would come up." The point is that our extradition treaties with other nations our entirely clear--they put our law front and center, and if one of our citizens is going to be "screwed" in ways that we wouldn't do to them, ourselves, we're going to deny that nation extradition, and that's no different than what most nations in the world would do to US if our laws go against their own standards.

The most popular and obvious representation of this treaty caveat is the death penalty--if a person is accused of a capital crime in the USA, most nations will not extradite unless and until STATE works with Justice, if a federal case, or asks Justice to deal with the individual state, to get a ruling from the state that takes the death penalty off the table as part of the sentencing options for the accused. Ira Einhorn is one such famous defendant who played that card and avoided extradition until he was guaranteed no death penalty. We also have a robust extradition treaty with Mexico, but they, too, tell us to shove it if the death penalty is on the table: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-17-Extradition_N.htm

It's right there in the OP document I provided. Our laws do not allow a re-conviction of an accused after a judge and jury rule that they didn't do the crime. There's no "nuance," and there's no wiggle room here.

The details in this case are quite clear--double-jeopardy--from *OUR* POV, not the Italian one--attends.

She is FREE, and will never have to deal with an Italian court ever again, no matter what they decide.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Rant on, it will not change the reality that it is a very detailed and nuanced issue

And pontifications and absolutisms are laughable.

[MADem]

44. Non bis in idem. Article VI of the USA-Italian Extradition Treaty.

It's right in there. And that's not a 'rant,' it's plain fact: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. The treaty is not, but your behavior has moved in that directions from its prior rational state

[MADem]

51. Run out of argument, indulge in snark and insult. You still have not made your

case with anything but "I know an FSO!!!" I could respond with "But I have personally known TWO Ambassadors to Italy!!!" but that wouldn't matter either. The law is the law.

Either come up with facts, for a change, or show yourself for someone who simply likes to noodge for sport.

[Chan790]

52. nevermind, You cited sec 6...I read 4.

6 forbids DJ. 4 says we have to extradite a US citizen if requested.

[MADem]

61. There's also the 5th Amendment, which guarantees all US citizens

the same basic non bis protection cited in the treaty. Miss Knox is as entitled to Constitutional protections as a US citizen as any of us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. I suggest you review child abduction/extradition requests and see how closely

the treaty is really followed. The pros in this area are laughing at you.

[MADem]

57. Yeah--it's NOT followed in numerous cases, some of which I have provided. So what's your point?

Here's still ANOTHER famous case where extradition was denied--Roman Polanski. Both France and Switzerland told us to go fuck ourselves.

There are abducted children all over the world--Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, New Zealand, you name it--that are not sent home despite treaties on the subject of child abduction in weak force.

However, I hate to tell you this, but children are not "extradited." See--they are not criminals.

And even when they are returned to the parent from whom they were abducted, often as not, the abducting parent gets away scot-free.

You clearly have lost the bubble on your 'argument.' The only one laughing is you, and it's one of those pathetic, nervous laughs of someone striving to redirect the discussion from "extradition" to child abduction.

Empty argument. Unrelated to the discussion, too. Epic fail, as the kids say.

[ljm2002]

10. I'm not an expert in matters of law...

...however, I believe the OP is pointing out that extradition treaties may include clauses which allow the country of refuge -- in this case, the U.S. -- to deny extradition based on its own notions of due process, such as double jeopardy. From the U.S. law's point of view, once a person has been acquitted, there can be no further trial for the same offense; and we may disallow extradition based on that, even if the country where the crime was charged has different notions about the appeals process.

[jeff47]

11. If the prosecutors appeal, and win, then she will not have been acquited.

The appeals court ruled that she should not have been convicted. If a higher court overrules that decision, that isn't a new trial. It's putting the old verdict back in force, meaning double jeopardy would not apply - there was only one trial.

Though it's a little awkward to try and align two significantly different legal systems in technical matters such as these.

[MADem]

15. That is still, in US parlance, double jeopardy.

One bite of the apple--that's all a prosecutor gets. If they can't make the sale, the accused walks. No "Off to jail, no, you're free, off to jail" nonsense.

Since the appeals process includes the hearing of evidence--as happened this last time with the new DNA evidence--that is, for all intents and purposes, a new trial in a different court.

[jeff47]

16. If it was a US case...

If it was a US case and an appeals court ruled there were prosecutorial errors, and then _that_ decision was reversed on appeal to a higher court, the original sentence would be in force. The defendant wouldn't be permanently freed based on the first appeal's success.

However, since this is Italian law interacting with US law, a prediction is difficult unless one is an expert in both.

[MADem]

17. Prosecutorial errors, SURE. But the game always goes to the ACCUSED in the US system.

If the prosecutor lied, and it produced a conviction where one was not due, of course the accused would be set free.

Once the prosecution has lost, they can't go back for a second bite at the apple. They're screwed. They have to get it right the first time. The only one who can go back for a second bite is the defense.

Advantage always goes to the accused. If it didn't, we'd probably still be retrying the OJ decision, where prosecution errors abounded.

[jeff47]

18. You're still talking about jury trials.

We're on to appeals now. Where the prosecutors can keep appealing their losses all they want, until the SCOTUS rules (or refuses the appeal).

[MADem]

19. Not when it comes to a crime where the accused has been set free.

Once they are free, that's it. Game over.

[Chan790]

53. You're putting too much creedence into US law here.

Convicted in Italy, she's subject to Italian law not US law regarding procedures of the court.

Just because it's DJ here doesn't mean she has any legal protection on this. The Italians have to know that they're never getting her back though and may never file extradition, even the filing on their part would likely cause Ms. Knox to be on the first plane to a country that has no extradition to Italy until the matter is resolved...like Turkey or Palau. Free in a 3rd world shithole beats Italian jails.

[MADem]

58. No, not when she is in the USA, she isn't subject to a law that has already freed her.

Double jeopardy attends here. The one bite of the apple rule.

The Italians have had their chance to convict her, and they did, but then, on appeal, a jury found, after arguments by both defense and prosecution, and testimony of witnesses, including the defendants, that she "did not commit the act."

When we look at law, we look at it from OUR perspective. As far as we are concerned, the Italians had their bite of the apple, and they lost. We--unlike the Italians--put the burden of proof on the prosecution, and once the prosecutors don't prove their case, the defendant is free and there isn't squat anyone can do about it. Once they've lost, they cannot go back and try her yet again--and that's OUR law, and that's double jeopardy. We don't care if the Italians allow it, we do not--you can call it "appeals" but in our parlance and our POV (which governs) what happened in Italy was a trial, and she was found to have not done the crime. So as far as we are concerned, that is the end of it.

The Italians can "convict" her all they want, but we will never send her back, because in "our" eyes (and we're the lead dog, as far as we are concerned, when it comes to our American citizens) she has been freed, and double jeopardy does attend in this case.

See, the blunt fact is, just as they don't really give a crap about our system of laws, we don't give a crap about theirs. Here in America, we interpret by OUR laws, and we bow to no other government--ever.

She will never be extradited. It just will not happen. If she's stupid enough to go to Sorrento on holiday and they've done that bullshit "Guilty until we say otherwise and you pay a big bribe" thing (which is a holdover from the Mussolini era and is under government review right now--this case will probably expedite it) then she's on her own, but so long as she hangs close to home, she's fine, and free.

[Hosnon]

20. Appellate review almost never involves new evidence.

The two-step appellate process is almost exclusively to review findings of law, not fact. (In the U.S.)

[MADem]

26. As was not the case in Italy, where new evidence ( DNA) was introduced. NT

[MADem]

14. You got it in one! Bravo! nt

[Hosnon]

21. Let's not forget in this specific instance she was, in fact, found guilty by the trial court.

Did the more recent decision simply place the original judgment on hold until the final review, or did it actually reverse it (i.e., not guilty)?

A second round of charges and a trial would undoubtedly be double jeopardy, but appeals by the prosecution are somewhat uncommon in our legal system. However, I do think that prosecutors can appeal reversals of a guilty verdict for limited reasons.

[MADem]

30. The judge said that Knox "did not commit the act."

In Italy, the prosecution can keep coming after you, even after you get the NOT GUILTY. There's no presumption of innocence at all.

Our law is different, and our extradition treaties reflect that--we don't send people back to countries to face "worse" punishments than they would have gotten under our system, and double jeopardy is specifically mentioned. The prosecution's desire to change her punishment from twenty some odd years to life AND solitary confinement was a real treat, too.

Knox and others gave testimony, her lawyers submitted new evidence, there were summations on both sides, and a jury deliberated. After that, the judge said she didn't do it. That might be a 'review' in Italy, but it smells like a trial over here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Neither is anyone here...

Lots of nuances when it comes to extradition, and a citations given are gross overviews at best. Talk to someone who has actually worked them before buying into this absolutist nonsense.

While I believe that it won't happen, should Italy ask for her extradition, it could well happen.

[MADem]

35. I invite your renewed attention the Congressional Research Svs. excerpt in the OP

as well as post 34. There is no nuance in this case. We apply OUR interpretation of law to any judicial actions taken against one of our citizens when considering extradition requests--we do not bow to the laws of any other nation. Italy has had their bite of the apple, they've tried her, in effect, for OUR purposes if not theirs, twice, and they're done, as far as we are concerned.

She will not be extradited. It simply will not happen. Even the British press, which enjoyed whipping up a frenzy as regards this unfortunate event, concurs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Again I suggest you talk to someone who has actually handled extraditions

I was married to a FSO who did, still know many active ones today. Their take uniformly is that it would depend on a lot details and that the pontification found online are laughable in their ignorance. Pretty much what I have been saying all along.

[MADem]

38. OK, fine....whatever. You're the smartest guy in the room--all these others are

just silly speculators! And we'll pay no attention to the CRS document on the topic either--because they're just making shit up, to amuse all the dot gov types and the rank/file at State!


:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Pretty much

The CRS document is a gross overview. If it was 10X longer and fully footnoted, it might be more meaningful.

Again, don't listen to me, talk to a pro...I took the time to, perhaps you should too.

[MADem]

45. Here's the actual treaty. Is that "professional" enough?

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf

Article VI governs. No "double jeopardy" plain and simple. From our perspective, and that IS how we view it (just as the Europeans view death penalty cases from their perspective) double jeopardy would attend, so she will not be extradited.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. Not without the curent precedents that define the terms for that treaty

[MADem]

50. The treaty is the treaty. There are no "precedents" that impact it.

It's in the document, or it's not salient.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. More showing just how little you know...

Consider this for a US based analogy...the law is the law regardless of precedents.

[MADem]

59. More childish taunting, but you're only making yourself look foolish. nt

[MADem]

12. In US law it sure as hell would. You don't think the prosecution would

not have appealed the OJ verdict if they could have?

In America, the prosecution gets ONE bite of the apple. That's it.

If you're acquitted, you're acquitted. No do-overs.

[Hosnon]

22. She was found guilty by the trial court.

And I don't know whether a reversal of that by the appellate court is considered an "acquittal". But even if it is, I'm fairly certain such reversals of guilty verdicts are appealable in the U.S. on limited grounds.

[MADem]

27. That's the term they used--the appeals court found that she "did not commit the act."

That's what the judge said.

They took her testimony, and they took new DNA evidence. Now, they can call that a review, but here, that's a new trial, and double jeopardy attends.

[Chan790]

56. ...a reversal of that by the appellate court is considered an "acquittal"

It's not. This is what Prog. Prof. has been trying to tell MADem for the past several hours. Her original conviction under Italian law never goes away, it is merely set aside and once convicted she's subject severance of her presumption of innocence under US law until it is overturned or she's served her sentence.

She has no Non bis in idem protection on this. Already convicted, she's subject to Italian law. She's not likely going to be extradited but she doesn't have the blanket protection that some think she has. We can't simply refuse, it ain't that simple.

edit: missing quotation mark.

[MADem]

60. We can refuse, and we will.

We look at what happened to her through our eyes, not theirs.

[Jim Lane]

24. You're assuming that an appellate reversal of a conviction is the equivalent of an acquittal.

I don't do criminal law, but my semi-educated guess is that jeff47 is right -- they're not equivalent, and a conviction at trial followed by an appellate reversal does not trigger double jeopardy. Of course, I'm guessing as to U.S. law. It might be different in Italy.

[MADem]

29. It is, according to our US extradition law.

She went to court, she gave testimony, her lawyers introduced new evidence. The judge ruled that "she did not commit the act." That sounds like an aquittal to me. If the judge had problems with the prosecution, he would have said "They didn't prove their case" or something on those lines. His specific language, though, was that she didn't do it.

The Italians may call that a review, but in our parlance, that's a trial, complete with prosecution, defense, testimony from the defendants, DNA experts, and others, and evidence, and summations. And the judge let her off, after a jury considered the evidence and testimony.

Our extradition law says that we don't send 'em back to face a double-jeopardy situation, and this would be plainly one, if the Italian court decided to reverse themselves yet again after letting her go. She's home.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Indeed there is a lot of assumption and projection going on

Very nuanced area and details are critical. The online absolutism is laughable to anyone with any experience in the area.

[MADem]

46. No nuance. Non bis in idem, plain and simple. nt

[panzerfaust]

33. We will never know the truth of what happened

Two things seem clear to me though:
1) Standards for collecting physical evidence should be higher - throughout the world;
2) Trial by Tabloid is always a bad idea.

[Bloke 32]

43. Now, were the charges pressed in Israel...

.....your president and Congress should be falling all over each other to deliver her back unto Bibi!

[MADem]

47. Well, there was a kid awhile ago who slaughtered someone in the US

in MD, I believe, and ran to Israel using the "homeland" excuse because he had a Jewish parent. It was a pretty gruesome crime, involving dismemberment and corpse-burning, and it was a death penalty case over here, but Israel refused to extradite because of that reason. IIRC, Israel did the whole "don't kill him and we'll send him back" routine, while the kid's lawyers (arranged by his father, also a lawyer) played the legal system to get him Israeli citizenship and a short sentence over THERE on a plea bargain. He's eligible for parole consideration in a couple of years.

He got a better deal by running, and they didn't send him back--I did a quick google, here are the details in brief:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/29/weekinreview/august-22-28-a-better-deal.html?src=pm
August 22-28; A Better Deal

By PHILIP SHENON

As a murderer, Samuel Sheinbein of Aspen Hill, Md., was an amateur; after killing an acquaintance in 1997, the 19-year-old left behind a handwritten note describing the murder plot. But in manipulating the legal systems of two countries, he seemed like a pro, fleeing to Israel and claiming citizenship on the basis of his father's birth in British Palestine. Mr. Sheinbein worked out a plea bargain to serve 24 years in prison, tough by Israeli standards. In Maryland, he would have faced life in prison without hope of parole. PHILIP SHENON