Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mike1711]

They do not. The court documents for an appeal (=the bundle) is made up from scratch and only contains material relevant to the issues under appeal.

There will be mandatory documents starting with the lower court verdict and MR and working backwards to the original pleadings.

A witness statement will only be included - under 'other' - if it is relevant to the appeal.

For the umpty-ninth time the Supreme Court does not assess the merits.

All....yes ALL, court documents are made available to an appeal court. If they weren't what kind of appeal would that be?

I have been in an appeal court in South Africa on more than one occasion (OK three times to be exact) as a party to the proceedings. Five Judges and all the court transcripts were bound into anything around fifty volumes (as is custmary) of hard copy transcripts of all evidence including witness statements. Each Judge gets a copy and every member of each legal team get copies as well. Constant referencing and cross referencing to these documents are made by Counsel on both sides during argument. Some argument is "off the cuff" so to speak as Judges continually ask probing questions so it is vital that ALL court documents are made available.

What kind of joke would it be if a lawyer made reference to previous proceedings in the appeal only to find that no hard copies was available to back up the argument.

How on earth can an appeal court give a sound judgement with anything less than all that went before them?

I would be shocked if Italian Law is different. Then it really would be the Mad Hatter and friends. No. It's not possible. I stand corrected on Italian law but if I'm wrong I will eat all my summer hats.

 

[Mike1711]

No, they do not 'trump lower court judgments'. They merely examine whether the law was applied properly.

...and then they play the final card which trumps all that went before.

Are you suggesting that AK and RS are subject to the ruling of the judgement of the lower court...(ie guilty of murder????)?

If so when do extradition proceedings against AK commence??

 

[Mike1711]

You stated that the Supreme Court ' determined that the issue [of the defandants' presence] was a non sequitur'.

As they were only determining the appealed legal grounds, they were not determining any such thing, as a thing being a non sequitur is not a legal grounds for appeal.

No I said no such thing.

Read

it

again

........s l o w l y

 

[Mike1711]

You are incorrect. The appeal court can ONLY look at points of law appealed against. The onus is on the appellant to identify that specific point of law that is in error. That is all the court of appeal can look at. It is a legal error to substitute their own judgment if they might have drawn a different verdict. The correct protocol is to remit it back for the disputed issue to be examined for its merits. A court might overturn a verdict and substitute an opposite verdict if the first instance verdict is blatantly perverse, but that is vanishingly rare.

In this case, neither of the parties pleaded at either the first or second instance court in the alternative, that the pair were present (if so found by the court) but had no involvement. It is a serious legal error for Bruno-Marasca to rule that that was the case.

You don't have to plead that you were or weren't anywhere. Just that you didn't do it, without necessarily having to plead where you were. It may help your case if you can prove you weren't at the scene of a crime but that is evidence and can be led or argued at any time regardless of pleading.

It really is so so simple and I apologise because I repeat it.....

The B/M judgement stated that it is a legal nonsense to extrapolate guilt of murder even if proof of presence in the vicinity is proved (which it clearly wasn't but that is besides the point). It doesn't matter that the lower court created a "legal fact" (idiotically....but the B/M would never state this publicly) of presence because that can never prove murder. To prove guilt of murder you have to ummmmmm prove it. That's the law and that's why it was tossed aside.

Case closed....booted out of court never to be heard again.

 

[Numbers]

All....yes ALL, court documents are made available to an appeal court. If they weren't what kind of appeal would that be?

I have been in an appeal court in South Africa on more than one occasion (OK three times to be exact) as a party to the proceedings. Five Judges and all the court transcripts were bound into anything around fifty volumes (as is custmary) of hard copy transcripts of all evidence including witness statements. Each Judge gets a copy and every member of each legal team get copies as well. Constant referencing and cross referencing to these documents are made by Counsel on both sides during argument. Some argument is "off the cuff" so to speak as Judges continually ask probing questions so it is vital that ALL court documents are made available.

What kind of joke would it be if a lawyer made reference to previous proceedings in the appeal only to find that no hard copies was available to back up the argument.

How on earth can an appeal court give a sound judgement with anything less than all that went before them?

I would be shocked if Italian Law is different. Then it really would be the Mad Hatter and friends. No. It's not possible. I stand corrected on Italian law but if I'm wrong I will eat all my summer hats.

There is no article in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure that limits the authority of the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) to examine any part of the trial records and motivation reports that it wishes to. It is the admissible appeal arguments that are limited to certain specific reasons for appeal, such as CPP Article 606.1 (e): the grounds of the judgment {of the lower court} are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the CSC.

The cognizance of the CSC is defined in CPP Article 609:
1. The appeal to the CSC assigns cognisance of the proceedings to the CSC, exclusively with regard to the arguments raised.
2. The CSC shall also decide on the issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceeding and on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage.

The implication of the ex officio provision (CPP Art. 609.2) apparently relates to decisions made by the trial or appeal judge ex officio, such as admission of evidence (CPP Art. 190) or exclusion of evidence (CPP Art. 191).

 

[bagels]

We will soon find out if Amanda's claim of police brutality and forced confession has any merit. A cynic might think she is trying to wriggle out of having been caught bang to rights falsely accusing her boss of the rape and murder of her 'friend'.

Three people that night, including Patrick himself, claimed the police either hit them or threatened to beat them.

The police have never released any proof to the contrary, despite all the allegations taking place in a new state of the art interrogation room with control room and audio/video recording technology.

If Italy convicts Amanda on these trumped up charges it will be another case for the ECHR in 6-8 business years or whatever it is lol

 

[Vixen]

For this reason the defence suggested that the witness had confused his memory of the evening of 1st November with that of 31st October, as well as because he had talked about a holiday period, with people wearing fancy dress and “young people kicking up a racket”. The fact that the witness added that the following day he noticed the appearance of men dressed all in white – a reference considered important by the first court – was therefore not held significant [by the second court], precisely due to the confusion expressed by the witness, who had mixed up his recollections. According to the Court, based on Curatolo’s testimony alone, the defendants had to be completely exonerated.

Sure seems like merits to me.

This will be information gleaned from Massei/Nencini's written reasons.

Bruno-Marasca did not see Curatalo being cross-examined.

 

[Vixen]

All....yes ALL, court documents are made available to an appeal court. If they weren't what kind of appeal would that be?

I have been in an appeal court in South Africa on more than one occasion (OK three times to be exact) as a party to the proceedings. Five Judges and all the court transcripts were bound into anything around fifty volumes (as is custmary) of hard copy transcripts of all evidence including witness statements. Each Judge gets a copy and every member of each legal team get copies as well. Constant referencing and cross referencing to these documents are made by Counsel on both sides during argument. Some argument is "off the cuff" so to speak as Judges continually ask probing questions so it is vital that ALL court documents are made available.

What kind of joke would it be if a lawyer made reference to previous proceedings in the appeal only to find that no hard copies was available to back up the argument.

How on earth can an appeal court give a sound judgement with anything less than all that went before them?

I would be shocked if Italian Law is different. Then it really would be the Mad Hatter and friends. No. It's not possible. I stand corrected on Italian law but if I'm wrong I will eat all my summer hats.

Sure, they are 'made available' should the judges want to peruse them, and a judge will often seek out a document. However, there is no legal requirement for them to do so if not part of the appeal.

 

[Numbers]

You are incorrect. The appeal court can ONLY look at points of law appealed against. The onus is on the appellant to identify that specific point of law that is in error. That is all the court of appeal can look at. It is a legal error to substitute their own judgment if they might have drawn a different verdict. The correct protocol is to remit it back for the disputed issue to be examined for its merits. A court might overturn a verdict and substitute an opposite verdict if the first instance verdict is blatantly perverse, but that is vanishingly rare.

....

These statements are totally and absurdly in error for the Italian courts.

This statement is an incomplete explanation of what the appeal to an Italian second-instance court may include.

What the Italian appeal (second-instance) courts do is to evaluate the case, which they may do de novo (from the beginning) if the presiding judge wishes to do so. That is, they may re-hear evidence and hear new evidence. They also interpret the law, or implement it, de novo.

This is different from the procedure in the US, where, at least for the Federal US courts, the law is interpreted by a de novo examination, while the evidence of the trial is reviewed for clear error, including interpretation and admissibility. The appeal court has the power to acquit. If the appellant claims there is new significant evidence, and the appeal court agrees, then the appeal court orders a new trial with the new evidence; very rarely, the appeal court may acquit or dismiss based on compelling significant new evidence.

In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) does not hear new evidence, but evaluates the evidence that was used by the lower court and its interpretation as grounds for the lower court judgment. It also evaluates and interprets the law. The CSC may acquit without referral or by affirming the acquittal of a lower court, but it cannot convict except by affirming the judgment of a lower court that has heard the evidence.

 

[Mike1711]

Sure, they are 'made available' should the judges want to peruse them, and a judge will often seek out a document. However, there is no legal requirement for them to do so if not part of the appeal.

Now we agree. ALL documents are made available and of course an appeal court cannot wade through probably in excess of a years worth of transcripts, much less digest them. That is why counsel for both sides is present at the hearing. To argue the appeal with reference to the court documents. Documents which contain a complete record of the case and handed to all prior to the appeal being heard.

 

[Numbers]

Verdict is due beginning of January 2016.

ETA the closest equivalent in the UK/USA would be perverting the course of justice, for example, in tampering with due process, witness intimidation, bribing witnesses to give false evidence etc.

We have to look at Italian calunnia in the context of its problems with dealing with the Mafia, who did all of the above. The establishment had to pass a law to make it specifically illegal to falsely claim the police were corrupt in an attempt to evade the due course of justice.

Apparently, as evidenced by your post, you do not know the definition of the crime of calunnia. It is none of the things you have listed.

Calunnia is the crime of knowingly falsely reporting to a judicial authority (police, prosecutor, or judge) that someone has committed a crime. It is a felony in Italy (punishable by more than one year in prison).

The closest US equivalent may be "false report to the police"* which is a misdemeanor (punishable by less than 1 year in jail), not a felony, in Washington State, which is where Knox resides and where therefore the descriptions (including minimum sentence of one year) for the crimes must match with that of Italy for extradition to be possible according to the treaty. And clearly they do not match.

The US-Italy extradition treaty only applies to crimes that are punishable by more than one year in prison.

The case against Amanda Knox was based largely on the Italian authorities maintaining that she was not coerced - by psychological pressure, threats, and (relatively minor) physical violence - to name Patrick Lumumba as the murder/rapist of Meredith Kercher. If the Italian authorities acknowledged the truth of her claims of coercion to speak falsely before a judicial authority, they would need to prosecute the police, and possibly the prosecutor, for violation of Italian criminal law, CP 377-bis (which specifically forbids use of threats or violence to coerce someone to make a false statement to a judicial authority; the punishment for violation is 3 to 6 years imprisonment).

By claiming Knox had committed calunnia against Lumumba, the police were given a practical immunity; she had to be convicted of that charge to keep the police from being prosecuted. The charge of calunnia against the police was a necessary follow-up; if that were not charged against Knox, there would need to be an investigation of the police for their alleged actions. Now that the statute of limitations (SoL) for the alleged coercive actions during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations has passed, the charges against Knox for calunnia against the police can be expected to be allowed to become extinct due to SoL in a lengthy trial and appeals.

* The Washington State law is:
RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

 

[Vixen]

You don't have to plead that you were or weren't anywhere. Just that you didn't do it, without necessarily having to plead where you were. It may help your case if you can prove you weren't at the scene of a crime but that is evidence and can be led or argued at any time regardless of pleading.

It really is so so simple and I apologise because I repeat it.....

The B/M judgement stated that it is a legal nonsense to extrapolate guilt of murder even if proof of presence in the vicinity is proved (which it clearly wasn't but that is besides the point). It doesn't matter that the lower court created a "legal fact" (idiotically....but the B/M would never state this publicly) of presence because that can never prove murder. To prove guilt of murder you have to ummmmmm prove it. That's the law and that's why it was tossed aside.

Case closed....booted out of court never to be heard again.

No, you don't have to plead you were there or not. However, the criminal law issue is whether your presence there is a crime or not. As you know, under Italian law, simply being present at a murder makes you liable to be charged as an accessory to murder (=exactly the same offence as murder itself).

Let's go back to the original pleadings: the pair were charged with murder (=which includes being an accessory = being present ceteris parabus). This was automatically first degree murder, as it is known in the US, or aggravated, in Italy, because of the sexual assault aspect. The defence could not plead a lesser degree of murder. For example, showing there was no premeditation, which is normally relevant, but because it is ipso facto aggravated murder, premeditation is moot here.

Now, the pair pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge of murder, as set out above. Their defense did not plead in the alternative, that although they deny being there or having anything to do with it, if the court finds they were present, then they plead not guilty of being an accessory to the fact of murder.

This was not pleaded at the appeal as a point of law, a legal point which would have been valid to appeal on, given the Massei and Nencini court ruled they were there in that they were both guilty of aggravated murder.

As they did not plead this anywhere, Bruno-Marasca err in making a determination they were there but not an accessory to murder, as they did not have the jurisdiction to make that finding.

For example, if they were never charged with murder, Bruno-Marasca would not have the jurisdiction to rule they were guilty of it. Likewise, it is exactly analogous here.

No way can you argue the presence of the pair at the murder scene is a legal non sequitur.

ETA As an example, there was a recent case of an alleged paedophile - in his 60's -who claimed he had a genuine love affair with an under age girl. In Italy, a minor under 16 and over 12, can have such an affair. The man IIRC was found guilty of statutory rape of a minor, which was remitted back to a lower court by the Supreme Court - causing an uproar amongst vigilantes - to be reassessed as to whether he waas in a 'love affair' as he claimed. The popular masses simply could not grasp that the first court had failed to take his pleading of a 'love affair' into account and this was a legal error.

He was of course guilty, but unless it is pleaded, the Supreme Court does not have the power to make a legal determination. To make their determination legal, they had to send it back to ensure it was constitutional, not because they supported paedophilia. Their personal opinion does not come into it.

 

[Grinder]

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, …
Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[8] As the Court in Brogan v. United States said:[9]

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

Federal law applies in every state.

 

[Vixen]

Now we agree. ALL documents are made available and of course an appeal court cannot wade through probably in excess of a years worth of transcripts, much less digest them. That is why counsel for both sides is present at the hearing. To argue the appeal with reference to the court documents. Documents which contain a complete record of the case and handed to all prior to the appeal being heard.

Look at it this way. You are the judge. I am the appellant. I want my case revisited on a legal point.

You will say to me: give me the grounds of appeal and quote which section of the law you claim is in error in the first court's reasoning. You say to me: YOU provide all the relevant documents. YOU argue how the reasons of the court are defective. I will sit back and hear your arguments. If YOU fail to give me the relevant documents and argue the correct legal points, that is YOUR tough luck.

"Here I am now, entertain me".

YOU cannot look at the first court's ruling and substitute your own verdict, unless it is a case of obvious perversion of justice. YOU were not there at the trial. YOU did not see the witnesses or the evidence. YOU know from your legal course in Roman and Dutch law in South Africa it is considered dangerous to decide a case 'on paper', so if you do believe I have good grounds for appeal, YOU send the case back down so that it can be HEARD properly by all parties.

 

[Kaosium]

Are you suggesting they evaluated evidence from previous trials?

"Manifest illogicality" is a legal argument. Do you suppose there might be something manifestly illogical about independent experts being assigned and their work essentially ignored by a court which failed to appoint new independent experts that challenged the previous work? Was C&V mentioned in Cheffi? By Nencini?

They read the reports, they didn't delve into the details unless they were encompassed by a prosecution/defense/court argument on the 'manifest illogicality' of them. This may be what causes some confusion and what I've been saying is why the 'manifest illogicality' argument has become passé and if I recall correctly from what I read years back has even been condemned by the other Supreme Court in Italy, the Constitutional one, not that it stops it from being introduced sometimes still, like in this case.

However that doesn't mean they went into every little detail in the case, nor that they passed judgement on those issues which which were the purview of the other courts. For the passage you've posted they probably just cribbed it from Nencini himself and simply used it as an example, it has no other relevance outside that.

 

[Numbers]

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, …
Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[8] As the Court in Brogan v. United States said:[9]

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

Federal law applies in every state.

How is the above statement, which applies solely to the "jurisdiction of the ... United States" to false statements to officers of any branch of the US government, germane in this case? Extradition from the US is based on the state law of the US resident; if there is no state law for the alleged crime, the federal government will attempt to match with the law in the majority of states. Federal law would apply only if the crime were uniquely applicable to US Federal jurisdiction (counterfeiting a national currency could be a good example).

This federal crime is not a one-to-one match to giving (allegedly under coercion) a false statement to a local police officer or a local judge about a murder. That is not a "federal case" except in special circumstances, such as a case on federal property such as a national park or counterfeiting or securities fraud.

See if you can find a case where there has been an extradition from the US for someone falsely reporting or accusing someone of murder or rape. Or for testifying in a court of law that police had hit her during an interrogation.

ETA: I went to 18 US Code 1001. You neglected to include section (b), which states that section (a) does not apply to anyone testifying in a court, or to any lawyer in a court case, etc. SO ... Is that neglect of completeness another misrepresentation in an ISF post?

 

[Mike1711]

Look at it this way. You are the judge. I am the appellant. I want my case revisited on a legal point.

You will say to me: give me the grounds of appeal and quote which section of the law you claim is in error in the first court's reasoning. You say to me: YOU provide all the relevant documents. YOU argue how the reasons of the court are defective. I will sit back and hear your arguments. If YOU fail to give me the relevant documents and argue the correct legal points, that is YOUR tough luck.

"Here I am now, entertain me".

YOU cannot look at the first court's ruling and substitute your own verdict, unless it is a case of obvious perversion of justice. YOU were not there at the trial. YOU did not see the witnesses or the evidence. YOU know from your legal course in Roman and Dutch law in South Africa it is considered dangerous to decide a case 'on paper', so if you do believe I have good grounds for appeal, YOU send the case back down so that it can be HEARD properly by all parties.

It's very difficult understanding exactly what you're saying.

You argue that I am the Judge but carry on your argument seem to confuse yourself and then you're behaving like the judge.....weird stuff. Judges don't argue, they listen to argument.

In South Africa all appeals are heard on the papers and it's not dangerous. Judges often have their verdicts overturned in South Africa because of the misapplication of law. Cases are only sent back down for RETRIAL when there is a mistrial. Pistorius, for example, had his appeal heard on the papers. The SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) overruled the lower court and substituted a finding of second degree murder (Dolus Eventualis) for the lower court's finding of culpable homicide (manslaughter).

The only part that gets referred to the lower court, interestingly enough, is the resentencing which should be early next year.

Pistorius might try his luck in the highest court in the land, the Constitutional Court but they most likely will refuse him.

 

[Grinder]

How is the above statement, which applies solely to the "jurisdiction of the ... United States" to false statements to officers of any branch of the US government, germane in this case?

It doesn't apply. Posted without perusal only a scan. My bad.

 

[Vixen]

Apparently, as evidenced by your post, you do not know the definition of the crime of calunnia. It is none of the things you have listed.

Calunnia is the crime of knowingly falsely reporting to a judicial authority (police, prosecutor, or judge) that someone has committed a crime. It is a felony in Italy (punishable by more than one year in prison).

The closest US equivalent may be "false report to the police"* which is a misdemeanor (punishable by less than 1 year in jail), not a felony, in Washington State, which is where Knox resides and where therefore the descriptions (including minimum sentence of one year) for the crimes must match with that of Italy for extradition to be possible according to the treaty. And clearly they do not match.

The US-Italy extradition treaty only applies to crimes that are punishable by more than one year in prison.

The case against Amanda Knox was based largely on the Italian authorities maintaining that she was not coerced - by psychological pressure, threats, and (relatively minor) physical violence - to name Patrick Lumumba as the murder/rapist of Meredith Kercher. If the Italian authorities acknowledged the truth of her claims of coercion to speak falsely before a judicial authority, they would need to prosecute the police, and possibly the prosecutor, for violation of Italian criminal law, CP 377-bis (which specifically forbids use of threats or violence to coerce someone to make a false statement to a judicial authority; the punishment for violation is 3 to 6 years imprisonment).

By claiming Knox had committed calunnia against Lumumba, the police were given a practical immunity; she had to be convicted of that charge to keep the police from being prosecuted. The charge of calunnia against the police was a necessary follow-up; if that were not charged against Knox, there would need to be an investigation of the police for their alleged actions. Now that the statute of limitations (SoL) for the alleged coercive actions during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations has passed, the charges against Knox for calunnia against the police can be expected to be allowed to become extinct due to SoL in a lengthy trial and appeals.

* The Washington State law is:
RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

'Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant' is not at all equivalent to the Italian crime of calunnia, for it fails to include the element of deliberately and falsely calling the police, prosecutors and similar 'corrupt', for malicious reason. In Amanda's case, Nencini or Massei (IIRC) argued 'aggravated calunnia' as an attempt to evade justice because of self-involvement in the crime of aggravated murder, the exact false charge Amanda levelled at Patrick.

Looking on google, a closer Federal offence could be 'Obstruction of Justice' which carries up to 20 years imprisonment, so clearly extraditable:

"Anticipatory obstruction of justice" has recently appeared on the horizon in cases such as US v. Wolff. However, the operative section, 1519, passed in 2002, has thus far languished in quasi-obscurity. Titled “Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy,” the provision was passed under Section 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The text of the statute is relatively straightforward:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Aside from Section 1519’s 20-year maximum prison sentence (no small benefit to the government in big-dollar fraud loss cases such as Wolff), its primary appeal is that it uniquely removes certain key proof burdens from prosecutors’ collective shoulders.

Prosecutors charging violations of Section 1519 must still establish both of the following:

The accused knowingly directed the obstructive act to affect an issue or matter within the jurisdiction of any U.S. department or agency.
The accused acted at least “in relation to” or “in contemplation’” of such issue or matter.

Source: wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

OK, so it is not exactly equivalent, being more directed towards the Enron-style destruction of corporate documents to conceal large scale fraud, but the principle of perverting justice, as the key intention, is there.

 

[acbytesla]

They do not. The court documents for an appeal (=the bundle) is made up from scratch and only contains material relevant to the issues under appeal.

There will be mandatory documents starting with the lower court verdict and MR and working backwards to the original pleadings.

A witness statement will only be included - under 'other' - if it is relevant to the appeal.

For the umpty-ninth time the Supreme Court does not assess the merits.

Of course they do Vixen. Or how do you explain that BM ruled that "even if" Amanda was there that does not prove she was involved in the murder?

They are ruling on the merit of the argument.