Amanda Knox will again go before an Italian court

[pnwmom]

157. There have been three courts that looked at the evidence.

The first level of trial in Italy is much more like a Grand Jury here. More than half of those who are found guilty at this level eventually have those verdicts overturned. (Maybe that is why some people view Italian trials as "defendant friendly" but it doesn't make sense to me.) During this first level trial for Amanda, Judge Massei prevented the defense from having any access to the DNA evidence that the prosecution was using against them. There was no other physical evidence that tied Amanda to the murder room; and the only testimony that placed her there was of a heroin addict who said he saw her outside the building the whole time -- and when pressed as to the date, he got the date wrong. (He said he remembered it was Halloween because of the costumes.) So either he gave her an alibi, because the murder took place inside the cottage; or he remembered her from the wrong day. Either way, the heroin addict's testimony was worthless.

The second level trial in Italy is more like a regular trial court here, not like an appeals court (though the Italians call it an appeal). They reconsider all the facts of the case and make a new judgment. As I said, half the time they overturn the previous judgment (which is more like an indictment than a firm verdict.) In Amanda's case, Judge Hellman wouldn't allow the defendants' experts access to the DNA evidence. But he did appoint his own independent experts, both faculty in forensics at the University of Rome. They both excoriated the prosecution's case, saying that that there was no DNA evidence linking either defendant to the murder or the victim's body. And since this was the essence of the prosecution's case, the Hellman court found for the students' innocence. (The so-called "confession" -- in which Amanda agreed that she had been in the kitchen but hadn't participated in the murder in the bedroom -- had already been ruled inadmissible by the Court of Cassation.)

At this point our state department thought that the case was "closed." There had been a full trial on the facts, and Amanda had been found innocent. But this is when the case got swept up into Italian politics. The Italian premier had been having his own problems with the justice system, and compared his problems to Amanda's, and called for an overhaul of the justice system. Before, the prosecutor Mignini's honor was at stake. Now, it was the whole Italian justice system. Then the premier ended up losing his office, and any chance for justice for Amanda was lost as well. The Hellman verdict -- instead of being ratified by the Court of Cassation -- got overturned.

And what did the Court of Cassation say? That the second "appeals" court had erred in not using Rudy Guede's fast-track trial stipulations against them. Without their being allowed to counter or challenge them, or question him in their trial! I can guarantee you that Alan Derschowitz would NOT say THAT is a little thing.

In any modern, half-way decent justice system, all defendants are presumed innocent till proven guilty. This right was taken from Amanda by the Court of Cassation in their ruling on the Hellman verdict.

Similarly, justice requires that suspects being questioned are allowed to have an attorney. Amanda was not -- which is why the Court of Cassation threw out her confession. But then they allowed it back in through the back door of the civil trial, held at the same time by the same Massei jury.

Similarly, justice requires that defendants' lawyers be allowed to question witnesses who testify against them. Amanda's were not. Rudy Guede gave a written statement against Amanda and Raffaele that was entered into the evidence against them and they weren't allowed to dispute it or question him.

Similarly, justice requires that defendants be able to examine all the evidence being used against them. Amanda's defense has STILL never had access to the raw DNA files of the case, though the Court appointed experts did find in their favor.

You apparently think none of this is a big deal. But I'm sure any criminal lawyer would tell you any of these are serious abrogations of civil rights. And I'm certain that Dershowitz is not well acquainted with the facts of this case, or he wouldn't have made the pronouncements he has made.