And if the defence wanted them, they would have asked them during the investigation and well before the end of the 2009 trial. And had the defence still wanted them after 2009, they would have submitted instances to the Supreme Court in order to have them and they would have asked them at the Hellmann appeal (which they did not do).
Machiavelli,
I was in contact with some of the scientists who was consulting with the defense. The defense made multiple requests; all were turned down. The Johnson and Hampikian letter, which was co-signed by seven other forensic scientists, specifically discussed the EDFs.
There is no "2009 trial." This is all one single trial, remember? But by all means, do let us know if you think there are separate trials, because then we will have a great big double jeopardy problem.
Anyway, they only need to ask for the information once, which they did . . . six years ago. And yet, it has never appeared (except to Novelli, who didn't ask for it until 2013).
I have asked this before of Yummi - Why, in any case, should the EDFs not have been handed over without asking, in pre-trial discovery?
Italy has no support at the ECHR on this issue.
"The right to a fair hearing incorporates the principle of equality of arms.
This means that everyone who is a party to proceedings
must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him/her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his/her opponent.A fair balance must be struck between the parties.
The right to a fair hearing also incorporates the right to adversarial proceedings, which means in principle the opportunity for parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed. In this context particular importance is to be attached to the appearance of the fair administration of justice.
In criminal cases, they overlap with some of the specific guarantees of Article 6 (3), but are not confined to those aspects of the proceedings. For example,
the Court held in the case of Bönisch v Austria that when an expert witness appointed by the defence is not accorded the same facilities as one appointed by the prosecution or the court, there is a violation of Article 6 (1).
Further, the Commission held, in Jespers v. Belgium,that the equality of arms principle read together with Article 6 (3) b
imposes an obligation on prosecuting and investigating authorities to disclose any material in their possession, or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself] or in obtaining a reduction in sentence. This principle extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness. In Foucher v. France the Court held that where a defendant who wished to represent himself was denied access by the prosecutor to the case file and not permitted copies of documents contained in it and thereby was unable to prepare an adequate defence, this was a violation of the principle of equal- ity of arms read together with Article 6 (3)."
http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRHAND/DG2-EN-HRHAND-03(2006).pdf
pp 46/47
Remember, of course, that Italian law is meant to incorporate Convention law and must be applied in a convention compliant manner as per decisions 348 and 349 of the Constitutional court. So, why has it not been done? Why was there no discovery?
