but because the US has explicit laws that not allow extraditions relating to double-jeopardy
Well do those laws (and the decisions interpreting them) make clear what should happen in a situation where the defendant was convicted at the trial level; the conviction was reversed at the appellate level; and then subsequently reinstated after a further appeal and remand?
I don’t think so. One article I read has a law professor asserting that double-jeopardy would not apply:
Some legal analysts have said that Knox could cloak herself in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy, being tried again for a crime after an acquittal. But that protection wouldn’t apply to Knox, Ku [a Hofstra law professor] wrote in a blog post.
For one thing, the treaty with Italy would block Knox’s extradition only if she had been prosecuted in the United States, he wrote. For another, double jeopardy wouldn’t apply because Knox was convicted, not acquitted, in the first round.
I do think that there’s a good chance the courts would resolve the double-jeopardy issue in favor of Knox, but not necessarily because such a result is clearly required by the law.
In Italy, the reversal at the appellate level is considered only a step towards a final decision. It’s not considered double-jeopardy because the legal system is set up differently. In the United States though, appeals court (“appellate” is synonymous with “appeals”) decisions are weighed equally to trial court decisions in criminal cases. If an appellate court reverses a conviction, the defendant cannot be re-tried because prosecutors in the US cannot appeal criminal cases.
The United States follows US law when making decisions about extradition. This isn’t a feature of any specific treaty with Italy: extradition treaties just signify that a country is allowed to extradite. All subsequent extradition requests from those countries are sent through the Department of State for review. Even if it passes review and the person arrested, a court hearing is held in the US to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. So there are multiple opportunities to look at Italian court procedures and decide whether they count as double-jeopardy under US law. Those investigations would tend toward deciding it does.
Ergo, the US would tend not to extradite someone whose verdict was reversed in a foreign appellate court.
In Italy, the reversal at the appellate level is considered only a step towards a final decision. It’s not considered double-jeopardy because the legal system is set up differently. In the United States though, appeals court (“appellate” is synonymous with “appeals”) decisions are weighed equally to trial court decisions in criminal cases. If an appellate court reverses a conviction, the defendant cannot be re-tried because prosecutors in the US cannot appeal criminal cases.
The United States follows US law when making decisions about extradition. This isn’t a feature of any specific treaty with Italy: extradition treaties just signify that a country is allowed to extradite. All subsequent extradition requests from those countries are sent through the Department of State for review. Even if it passes review and the person arrested, a court hearing is held in the US to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. So there are multiple opportunities to look at Italian court procedures and decide whether they count as double-jeopardy under US law. Those investigations would tend toward deciding it does.
Are you saying that the double-jeopardy issue is clear and simple and there is no room for reasonable people to dispute it? If so, how do you explain American law professors who assert that it’s not a barrier? Also, would you mind citing the precedent cases which back up your reasoning?
I believe that more likely than not the double-jeopardy issue would be resolved in favor of Knox, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.
Well do those laws (and the decisions interpreting them) make clear what should happen in a situation where the defendant was convicted at the trial level; the conviction was reversed at the appellate level; and then subsequently reinstated after a further appeal and remand?
I don’t think so. One article I read has a law professor asserting that double-jeopardy would not apply:
I do think that there’s a good chance the courts would resolve the double-jeopardy issue in favor of Knox, but not necessarily because such a result is clearly required by the law.
In Italy, the reversal at the appellate level is considered only a step towards a final decision. It’s not considered double-jeopardy because the legal system is set up differently. In the United States though, appeals court (“appellate” is synonymous with “appeals”) decisions are weighed equally to trial court decisions in criminal cases. If an appellate court reverses a conviction, the defendant cannot be re-tried because prosecutors in the US cannot appeal criminal cases.
The United States follows US law when making decisions about extradition. This isn’t a feature of any specific treaty with Italy: extradition treaties just signify that a country is allowed to extradite. All subsequent extradition requests from those countries are sent through the Department of State for review. Even if it passes review and the person arrested, a court hearing is held in the US to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. So there are multiple opportunities to look at Italian court procedures and decide whether they count as double-jeopardy under US law. Those investigations would tend toward deciding it does.
Ergo, the US would tend not to extradite someone whose verdict was reversed in a foreign appellate court.
Are you saying that the double-jeopardy issue is clear and simple and there is no room for reasonable people to dispute it? If so, how do you explain American law professors who assert that it’s not a barrier? Also, would you mind citing the precedent cases which back up your reasoning?
I believe that more likely than not the double-jeopardy issue would be resolved in favor of Knox, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.