Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

The entire subject of the timing allocated to each lawyer is a red herring.

The CSC determines what that time is, and it may vary depending on the number of questions the panel judges have for each lawyer.

And a large number of questions may indicate the panel judges have a problem with accepting the points of an appeal just as well as they may have a positive reaction to the points of an appeal.

The "issue" of unequal time for any one lawyer indicating an unfairness makes as much sense as an "issue" of an unequal number of pages in any one appeal document indicating an unfairness.

ETA: For the motivation reports, the longer ones (Massei and Nencini) made little sense and were actually arbitrary, while the shorter ones (Hellmann and Marasca) actually made considerable sense, although they have some rough spots.

I don't know if the same applies to appeal documents.

The short-form verdict resulting from a CSC judgment, by Italian procedural law, CPP Article 615, "shall be read at the hearing immediately after its deliberation" and the deliberation is conducted "in closed sessions immediately after the open-court hearing is concluded, unless the President of the bench believes it is essential to postpone the deliberation due to the high number or the importance of the issues to be decided."

Since the Marasca CSC panel delivered the short-form verdict relatively soon (within some hours) after the open hearing concluded on March 27, 2015, it appears that the judges had sufficiently reviewed the case to their own satisfaction based upon their reading of the appeal documents, prior to the open hearing. The open hearing presentations and questions may or may not have been decisive, but the motivation report detail clearly goes beyond any information likely to have been conveyed in the open hearing.

 

[acbytesla]

If M&B had found the kids guilty and the court had given extra time to the prosecution would it be an issue for you? Would justice have been perverted just because the state was given a few minutes?

No.

I doubt that would have made a difference either way. You spoke about the US Supreme Court. I've read that the oral presentations before the court are never really all that decisve.

 

[Mike1711]

First you claimed there was no time limit in this case. I provided a newspaper account that said there was.

Then you claimed that no sane court of appeal would have time limits and I show that even our Supreme Court has them.

It seems clear you have no clue.

Grinder your example referred to a hearing. This is completely different. (A red hearing ).

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer. A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.

What Mignini went through when he was censured was a hearing. Different animal altogether.

Vixen provided numerous examples of newspaper reports and was told in numerous occasions that these are unreliable.

Again,,it is very likely that time frames were adopted and very unlikely that time LIMITS were arbitrarily set by Judges.

Let me repeat. There is no evidence provided on this forum that time limits in ISC are provided for.

 

[Mike1711]

Thanks for the effort. The question of what law gave time limits was a red herring as no one claimed it was a law or part of the constitution. In Italy as here and elsewhere courts develop rules over time. The article on our SC related time limits were set because cases were being drawn out.

Vixen claimed the time limits were cast in stone. If not by law then how?

Her claim was also that B/M time transgressions were prejudicial. There were no time transgressions. There was no prejudice.

Hearings are informal and occur under the ambit in various informal/formal bodies where relatively minor transgressions (professional misconduct) are heard. They are not courts of appeals.

The argument should be about justice not who took how long. Hopefully we can agree on this.

 

[Mike1711]

The entire subject of the timing allocated to each lawyer is a red herring.

The CSC determines what that time is, and it may vary depending on the number of questions the panel judges have for each lawyer.

And a large number of questions may indicate the panel judges have a problem with accepting the points of an appeal just as well as they may have a positive reaction to the points of an appeal.

The "issue" of unequal time for any one lawyer indicating an unfairness makes as much sense as an "issue" of an unequal number of pages in any one appeal document indicating an unfairness.

ETA: For the motivation reports, the longer ones (Massei and Nencini) made little sense and were actually arbitrary, while the shorter ones (Hellmann and Marasca) actually made considerable sense, although they have some rough spots.

I don't know if the same applies to appeal documents.

Makes perfect sense. Thank you.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen claimed the time limits were cast in stone. If not by law then how?

Her claim was also that B/M time transgressions were prejudicial. There were no time transgressions. There was no prejudice.

Hearings are informal and occur under the ambit in various informal/formal bodies where relatively minor transgressions (professional misconduct) are heard. They are not courts of appeals.

The argument should be about justice not who took how long. Hopefully we can agree on this.

I think you are correct about how the word "hearing" is used in the US and some other legal systems. "Hearing" can mean any of several different proceedings within the US:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearing

In the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (in the English translation edited by Gialuz et al.), the presentation and questioning of the lawyers in a CSC appeal trial in open court is called a "hearing", but I am not sure if all the US meaning is implied. It does suggest the oral presentations by each lawyer (including the prosecutor) with a question and answer follow-up; the defendants and the private parties are not admitted to give evidence and need not attend, but are represented by their lawyers. There is also a presentation by the reporting judge, in this case Paolo Bruno.

For the CSC, the CPP distinguishes the "hearing" with the lawyers in attendance from the "deliberation" of only the panel of judges in closed session.

The CPP does not say anything about a requirement that each lawyer be given the same amount of time for the presentation, although this could be a procedure or rule of the CSC that may be flexible.

I think the logic, evidence, and legal support of the written appeals and of the final CSC motivation report are more important factors than the length of the oral presentations.

 

[Zephyrgeist]

This Thread should be taken out and shot

Sorry, OT. Oh wait, we have none. Or rather, we have ~50.

 

[Vixen]

How many times has a mini-thread with one particular poster here simply wandered around with no particular rhyme nor reason?

​

Vixen was accusing Avv Bongiorno of purposely, maybe criminally, but certainly monstrously abusing her time privilege in front of ISC, with the alleged criminal ISC Section's blessing.

What happened after this whopper?

​

The highlighted part is perhaps not fully-technically true, yet by the time a lawyer is presenting at the ISC, one would hope that the lawyer is the one officer of the court committed to exercising that duty in favour of the accused! Is that really rocket science?

But no matter, there's no rail firm enough that cannot be run off of, when one is derailing things....

​

So? Duty One-A is to take direction from their client and advance their interests, while at the same time participating as an officer of the court. So far the exchange is, for practical purposes, meaningless.

​

This says it better. The non-issue should be solved. But was it? Please remember, this started as an accusation that Avv. was allowed a MONSTROUS amount of time at the Section 5 hearing......

​

Huh!? Did anyone claim that this strawman was true? Then again, what does it have to do with the alleged/implied conspiracy (above) that Avv. Bongiorno was allowed a MONSTROUS amount of time at the final appeal hearing?

Going for laughs,......

​

...... which is simply a restatement of the truism that a defence lawyer's primary duty as an officer of the court, is to the accused. What is hard about that?

More important, what's this now got to do with Avv. Bongiorno having a MONSTROUS amount of time to facilitate that duty?

I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of those unanswered questions.

Equality (blindness) is a core principle of justice. Giving "the rich guy" (Avv Bongiorno) disproportionately more time (two days) than the other parties is unethical and potentially breaches professional conduct by the judges for allowing it.

It is an important principle of serving justice. It is not my problem - nor is it "flooding" - if you cannot grasp it.

However, a barrister (which judges usually are) is duty bound to understand it.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen claimed the time limits were cast in stone. If not by law then how? Her claim was also that B/M time transgressions were prejudicial. There were no time transgressions. There was no prejudice.

Hearings are informal and occur under the ambit in various informal/formal bodies where relatively minor transgressions (professional misconduct) are heard. They are not courts of appeals.

The argument should be about justice not who took how long. Hopefully we can agree on this.

This is not true. Please quote correctly and in context, the context being this case.

 

[Planigale]

Equality (blindness) is a core principle of justice. Giving "the rich guy" (Avv Bongiorno) disproportionately more time (two days) than the other parties is unethical and potentially breaches professional conduct by the judges for allowing it.

It is an important principle of serving justice. It is not my problem - nor is it "flooding" - if you cannot grasp it.

However, a barrister (which judges usually are) is duty bound to understand it.

I think the word you look for is 'equity'. Equality is not something courts can achieve. The 'rich man' in this and most criminal cases is the state. The court / judges must be assured that the defendant has had a 'fair' hearing. This is not a school debate where each side is given equal time. Do you think the Italian judges are so poor that they will be swayed by a long and impassioned speech as against the facts in the written submissions?

In all stages of the Italian system much of the case is in written form. Only limited amounts of the case are presented in court, this written proportion increases as the case proceeds up the judicial system. One would not argue that the state presented more pages than the defence, that a word limit should be enforced.

 

[Mike1711]

This is not true. Please quote correctly and in context, the context being this case.

"This case" has the same rules as any other case.

"The rules" don't get reinvented on whims.

 

[Mike1711]

I think you are correct about how the word "hearing" is used in the US and some other legal systems. "Hearing" can mean any of several different proceedings within the US:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearing

In the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (in the English translation edited by Gialuz et al.), the presentation and questioning of the lawyers in a CSC appeal trial in open court is called a "hearing", but I am not sure if all the US meaning is implied. It does suggest the oral presentations by each lawyer (including the prosecutor) with a question and answer follow-up; the defendants and the private parties are not admitted to give evidence and need not attend, but are represented by their lawyers. There is also a presentation by the reporting judge, in this case Paolo Bruno.

For the CSC, the CPP distinguishes the "hearing" with the lawyers in attendance from the "deliberation" of only the panel of judges in closed session.

The CPP does not say anything about a requirement that each lawyer be given the same amount of time for the presentation, although this could be a procedure or rule of the CSC that may be flexible.

I think the logic, evidence, and legal support of the written appeals and of the final CSC motivation report are more important factors than the length of the oral presentations.

The written appeal (under the heads of argument) is a detail of the alleged transgression of law filed by the defendants attorneys.

All previous court transcripts are available to the Judges in hard copy format weeks before the appeal.

It's not a cold case type hearing. The Judges will be fully conversant with the entire case prior to appeal.

At the appeal argument by parties is heard, including rebuttal. Detailed questioning at any instance by the Appeal Judges is common.

It's not as if the hearing is a series of monologue uninterrupted speeches where Judges listen passively.

That's how it happens in South Africa anyway.

 

[Mr Fied]

I can't see what the problem is regarding the time each side had to present it's case.

For the prosecution to present all of their evidence should have taken 5 or 10 minutes.

For the defence to point out all of the mistakes, lies, cover ups, hidden evidence, illegal procedures etc would have taken days.

 

[Planigale]

I can't see what the problem is regarding the time each side had to present it's case.

For the prosecution to present all of their evidence should have taken 5 or 10 minutes.

For the defence to point out all of the mistakes, lies, cover ups, hidden evidence, illegal procedures etc would have taken days.

Good point!

 

[Mike1711]

I can't see what the problem is regarding the time each side had to present it's case.

For the prosecution to present all of their evidence should have taken 5 or 10 minutes.

For the defence to point out all of the mistakes, lies, cover ups, hidden evidence, illegal procedures etc would have taken days.

Well said!

 

[andreajo]

That's just sophistry. The parties were told at the start they would have an equal twenty minutes each to present their submissions. The hearing was listed for two days.

This was extended by two days, to give Avv Bongiorno a whole further two days, not advised in advance; they just allowed it.

<snip>

Yes there was and there are time limits here as well in front of both Appeals and the Supreme Court.

From the Guardian: In a rousing closing argument that lasted ,nearly two hours – they are supposed to be limited to 20 minutes in the court of cassation in Rome – Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito’s lawyer, said her client had always tried to cooperate with investigators and had not been in the room where the crime was committed.


I also remember that it was 20 minutes and Bongiorno was given extra time.

Rather than posit about what you believe that appeals courts or supreme court do in general why not research the specific we are discussing?

Equality (blindness) is a core principle of justice. Giving "the rich guy" (Avv Bongiorno) disproportionately more time (two days) than the other parties is unethical and potentially breaches professional conduct by the judges for allowing it.

It is an important principle of serving justice. It is not my problem - nor is it "flooding" - if you cannot grasp it.

However, a barrister (which judges usually are) is duty bound to understand it.

Two days or two hours?

I am sure the judges were the best judges of what they needed to hear in order to fully understand the case. As others have mentioned, fairness in a criminal case is different than fairness in a sports contest, where both parties have an equal investment and will suffer the same consequences in the event of a loss.

The judges' job is to determine the truth, not pick a winner. The consequences to Knox and Sollecito of a finalized guilty verdict would have been grave. Since the next 20 years of their lives were at stake, I see no unfairness in giving the case in their defense a careful hearing.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder your example referred to a hearing. This is completely different. (A red hearing ).

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer. A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.

What Mignini went through when he was censured was a hearing. Different animal altogether.

Vixen provided numerous examples of newspaper reports and was told in numerous occasions that these are unreliable.

Again,,it is very likely that time frames were adopted and very unlikely that time LIMITS were arbitrarily set by Judges.

Let me repeat. There is no evidence provided on this forum that time limits in ISC are provided for.

No, it was Grinder who provided the newspaper report. Please try to be accurate about attribution.

An appeal at the Supreme Court is still a "hearing".

Time limits are not arbitary. The judges DIRECTED the appellants and respondants they had twenty minutes each.

Your arguments are weakened by your apparent support of your side getting a disproportionately longer submission, simply by the fact it is to the benefit of your cause.

 

[Vixen]

It's another revolving door of absurdity. Do we think justice was perverted because Raffaele's lawyer took 60 or 90 minutes instead of 30?

This is a more sophisticated form of logical fallacy, the use of piecemeal. Well done, you are becoming advanced!

The issue of length of time for submission is just one of many improper acts complained of by PM Mignini.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder your example referred to a hearing. This is completely different. (A red hearing ).

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer. A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.

What Mignini went through when he was censured was a hearing. Different animal altogether.

Vixen provided numerous examples of newspaper reports and was told in numerous occasions that these are unreliable.

Again,,it is very likely that time frames were adopted and very unlikely that time LIMITS were arbitrarily set by Judges.

Let me repeat. There is no evidence provided on this forum that time limits in ISC are provided for.

Mike the Supreme Court doesn't hold trials in the normal sense. Vixen was criticized for using Richard Owen's early reports that were known to be inaccurate. There was a source provided which is an accepted legitimate one not TJMK or Richard Owen.

Here is the complete section on the Supreme Court and how it hears cases. Btw, I never indicated the time limits were set in stone here and we don't know exactly how they were set in Italy. The best information we have is from the Guardian article.

Hearing cases[edit]
Filing briefs[edit]
Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:

The rules direct what information must be included in a brief, describe the size of paper and type of print, and limit the number of pages. Even the colors of the covers of the briefs are specified: the petitioner's brief must have a blue cover and the respondent's must have a red cover. The Court also often receives briefs from amici curiae (friends of the Court) in particular cases, and these must have a green cover. This color-coding comes in very handy when you have a stack of eight or ten briefs in a particular case and can locate the brief you want by its color without having to read the covers of each.[10]
Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.​

So you see any case in front of the SC doesn't even get a hearing. When they do get a hearing they most always have a time limit of 30 minutes. Do you think the colors of the folders are the law?

The only way we here can get information about the trial is to read or hear reports. I have provided such a report, you have provided your opinion based on a class you took 40 years ago.

 

[Grinder]

Hearings are informal and occur under the ambit in various informal/formal bodies where relatively minor transgressions (professional misconduct) are heard. They are not courts of appeals.

I'm sure those lawyers that have presented orally at a SC hearing would thing the comment above completely ignorant.

Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally.