Meredith, Sollecito in tv scarica Amanda: «Avevo fumato, posso aver accavallato gli orari»

di Fra. Mar.

Ha scelto Bruno Vespa per andare a raccontare la sua innocenza e per scaricare Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito, il giovane ingegnere barese, due volte condannato per l’omicidio di Meredith Kercher insieme alla sua ex fidanzata Amanda Knox, rischia seriamente di andare presto in carcere, se la Cassazione, che esaminerà il caso il 25 marzo prossimo, confermerà la condanna emessa nel corso dell’appello bis davanti alla Corte d’Assise d’Appello si Firenze.

In carcere? Sollecito ha detto di non aver mai pensato a questa eventualità perché lui è innocente. Un po’ impacciato e con qualche tentennamento nell’esporre la sua versione, Sollecito ha cercato di differenziare la sua posizione da quella di Amanda, come già avevano fatto i suoi legali nel processo di Firenze. «Io non c’entro, stiamo ancora parlando di Amanda, io non posso saperlo» risponde a Vespa. E ancora gli dice che quella sera aveva fumato una canna e potrebbe aver accavallato gli orari. Raffaele Sollecito è stato condannato a 25 anni di carcere e in tanti anni di processi, non ha mai detto chiaramente cosa è successo quella sera. E dal processo bis di Firenze, lui e i suoi legali cercano sempre di più di differenziare le due posizioni degli ex fidanzatini.

Extradition from the United States to Italy Italy is one of the few countries with this complex procedure, which it does not consider to be in violation of the constitutional prohibition of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) reflected in article 649 of the Italian Code of Criminal procedure. The prohibition of ne bis in idem is included in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but, so far, the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) has not interpreted Italian law as violating the European Convention. Thus, the procedure described above has not been found to be in violation of ne bis in idem under the ECHR. The 1983 U.S.–Italy Extradition Treaty states in article VI that extradition is not available in cases where the requested person has been acquitted or convicted of the “same acts” (in the English text) and the “same facts” (in the Italian text). Treaty interpretation needs to ascertain the intentions of the parties by relying on the plain language and meaning of the words. Italy’s law prohibiting ne bis in idem specifically uses the words stessi fatti, which are the same words used in the Italian version of article VI, meaning “same facts.” Because fatti, or “facts,” may include multiple acts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test of “same conduct” in Sindona v. Grant, citing international extradition in US law and practice, based on this writer’s analysis. Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be—“same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct”—Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct. Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times. In light of the jurisprudence of the various circuits on this issue, it is unlikely that extradition would be granted. The US Supreme Court can also make a constitutional determination under the Fifth Amendment of the applicability of double jeopardy to extradition cases, particularly with respect to a requesting state’s right to keep on reviewing its request for the same acts or facts in the hope of obtaining a conviction. But, no such interpretation was given to the Fifth Amendment in any extradition case to date. Surprising as it may be, neither the Supreme Court nor any Circuit Court has yet held that the Fifth Amendment’s “double jeopardy” provision applies to extradition. So far, double jeopardy defenses have been dealt with as they arise under the applicable treaty. Conclusion: Amanda Knox’s extradition from the United States to Italy under existing jurisprudence is not likely. 

One reply on “Meredith, Sollecito in tv scarica Amanda: «Avevo fumato, posso aver accavallato gli orari»”

GeorgeHanshaw1 says:

6 Febbraio 2015 at 7:03

Extradition from the United States to Italy Italy is one of the few countries with this complex procedure, which it does not consider to be in violation of the constitutional prohibition of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) reflected in article 649 of the Italian Code of Criminal procedure. The prohibition of ne bis in idem is included in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but, so far, the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) has not interpreted Italian law as violating the European Convention. Thus, the procedure described above has not been found to be in violation of ne bis in idem under the ECHR. The 1983 U.S.–Italy Extradition Treaty states in article VI that extradition is not available in cases where the requested person has been acquitted or convicted of the “same acts” (in the English text) and the “same facts” (in the Italian text). Treaty interpretation needs to ascertain the intentions of the parties by relying on the plain language and meaning of the words. Italy’s law prohibiting ne bis in idem specifically uses the words stessi fatti, which are the same words used in the Italian version of article VI, meaning “same facts.” Because fatti, or “facts,” may include multiple acts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test of “same conduct” in Sindona v. Grant, citing international extradition in US law and practice, based on this writer’s analysis. Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be—“same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct”—Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct. Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times. In light of the jurisprudence of the various circuits on this issue, it is unlikely that extradition would be granted. The US Supreme Court can also make a constitutional determination under the Fifth Amendment of the applicability of double jeopardy to extradition cases, particularly with respect to a requesting state’s right to keep on reviewing its request for the same acts or facts in the hope of obtaining a conviction. But, no such interpretation was given to the Fifth Amendment in any extradition case to date. Surprising as it may be, neither the Supreme Court nor any Circuit Court has yet held that the Fifth Amendment’s “double jeopardy” provision applies to extradition. So far, double jeopardy defenses have been dealt with as they arise under the applicable treaty. Conclusion: Amanda Knox’s extradition from the United States to Italy under existing jurisprudence is not likely.

Comments are closed.