I certainly have a proper translation of 530 which is not cut-and-paste Google Translate.....
1) You are simply wrong in your interpretation of 530.1 and 530.2 (specifically you are wrong in your interpretation of 530.2)
2) Do you know who Luca Cheli is, and what he does for a living?
3) Do you think that any American automatically has the ability to parse and interpret US codes of criminal procedure?
4) Oh and you were - and remain - wrong on Miranda only ever applying to persons who've been arrested (you seem unable or unwilling to understand the concept of being interviewed under caution in a police station....).
But it's simply not worth arguing with you at this point. Have a nice day
Perhaps you should ask that anyone believing that there is a difference between an acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 in this case, where the specific verdict includes the wording that the accused did not commit the act (crime), what the legal difference in consequence of the 530.2 acquittal is compared to a 530.1 difference. I realize you are well aware that there is no difference in the legal consequences.
I have tried to explain on this forum that there is no such difference in legal consequence, and quoted an excellent English translation of the relevant CPP Articles (which include CPP Articles 629, 648, 649, and 652) but apparently there are those who do not wish to accept this simple concept.
Briefly, CPP Article 648 states that a judgment delivered at trial which is not subject to an appellate remedy, other than revision, is final. Article 629 states that only final convictions may be subject to revision trials.
CPP Article 649 states that a person who has been dismissed (thus including acquitted or time-barred dismissal) by a judgment that has become final may not be tried again for the same offense.
Thus, in terms of criminal action, Knox and Sollecito are fully and finally acquitted on the charges relating to the murder/rape of Kercher and may not be tried again for that offense, even if there were a rewording of the charges.
CPP Article 652 states that the final judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect on the civil trial conducted during the criminal trial, when the verdict indicates that the accused did not commit the commit the act (crime), or for certain other types of acquittal (such as that the crime did not occur or that the alleged crime was an act of self-defense).
Thus, because the civil action by the Kerchers was brought in parallel (that is, before the same judges at the same time) with the criminal trial, and because the verdict of acquittal is for the reason that the accused did not commit the act, Knox and Sollecito cannot be subject to any similar civil action by the Kerchers in Italy.
There may indeed be a perception by some Italians that there is some difference in an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2 compared to 530.1, but this perception is, as explained by Mitja Gialuz, Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste, a carry-over from the transition from the inquisitorial system to the adversarial system, and the gradual introduction and acceptance in Italy of the concept of an accused being judged guilty and convicted after trial only if proven guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt (now encoded in CPP Article 533.1). This wording in Article 533.1 was only adopted in law in 2006; prior to that adoption of BARD, there was more ambiguity in judicial discretion with respect to convictions.
Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014.
