“From what I understand, [Court of Cassation judges] have sent [the case] back for revision and reconsideration. They will review it. They may simply affirm that there was a ‘not guilty’ before and it should remain the same. They may seek to take some further evidence, but nothing has really changed.”
On October 3, 2011, the global media was riveted by the imminent Amanda Knox appeals court verdict. I live-blogged it here. The appeals court declared her not guilty.
Prosecutors appealed to Italy's highest court. While the court didn't take a position on Knox' guilt or innocence, it did overturn the appeals court verdict.
No reasons were given for the ruling -- the court has 60 days to issue a written explanation of its findings. And Knox does not have to return to Italy for a retrial, if one is held.
Italy has an unusual justice system. Two levels of appeals are allowed, and at the first level, the appeals court operates like a jury. Italy allows prosecutors to appeal acquittals, including those by appeals courts. In the U.S., it would be a violation of the Double Jeopardy clause for the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.
The question is, what happens if she is convicted at the next trial? When all her appeals are done, if she loses, will Italy seek her extradition? And if it does, will the U.S. deny extradition because the procedure under which she was convicted would be unconstitutional in the U.S.?
Apparently, should it get to that point, the answer may depend upon how the judge presiding over Knox's challenge to the extradition request views the extradition treaty we signed with Italy in the context of the double jeopardy clause. Reuters reports:
What is unpredictable is how such a case would play out in front of a U.S. judge who would have to weigh the U.S. constitutional protection against double jeopardy with the 1984 bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and Italy. The treaty contains a provision that attempts to protect against double jeopardy, but it is not clear whether that provision would bar extradition in Knox's case.
The legal question would be whether Knox was acquitted, as U.S. courts would define the term, or whether the case was merely reversed and still open for further appeal, said criminal lawyer and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. "It's very complicated, and there's no clear answer. It's in the range of unpredictable," Dershowitz said.
While the news is undoubtedly upsetting to Amanda Knox and her family from a legal standpoint, I suspect it will be a big boon for her publisher, who paid her $4 million for her book which is coming out in April.
