The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

Oh, for crying out loud, Vixen. Do you think she ONLY does pro bono work? Of course not.

Please point out to me where I said, or even implied, she "does it all 'pro bono'"

Obliged means required, aspired means wished, wanted, worked toward and is voluntary. Sheesh.


Exactly where did I say Ferguson was "exonerated"? I didn't. As for the juror, some people still think people lived at the same time as dinosaurs and that there is no global warming. You can't cure stupid.

Speaking of massive porky pies, US attorneys are not "obliged" to do 50 hours of pro bono work.

"The ABA describes the parameters of pro bono for practicing lawyers in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.* Model Rule 6.1 states that lawyers should aspire to render--without fee--at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year, with an emphasis that these services be provided to people of limited means or nonprofit organizations that serve the poor. The rule recognizes that only lawyers have the special skills and knowledge needed to secure access to justice for low-income people, whose enormous unmet legal needs are well documented. Nearly every state has an ethical rule that calls upon lawyers to render pro bono services." (American Bar Association)

If it is the American Bar Association Rule 6.1, then it means an attorney can be disciplined if someone complains under this rule.

In effect, it is a duty = an obligation.

 

[toto]

That is just part of the template. (As you know.)

The words are there: AK and RS are free. If the crime and their acquittal were in the UK, and this website were published in the UK you would not be able to write quite a bit of what you come up with. By the way insufficient evidence is how most acquittals in the U.K. come about wouldn't you agree?

 

[LondonJohn]

The words are there: AK and RS are free. If the crime and their acquittal were in the UK, and this website were published in the UK you would not be able to write quite a bit of what you come up with. By the way insufficient evidence is how most acquittals in the U.K. come about wouldn't you agree?

It's the way every* acquittal in the England & Wales jurisdiction comes about - other than those where the defendant is able to prove factual innocence (and few if any such cases ever make it to trial in the first place, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain....), or those cases where the court determines that no crime actually took place**.

It's simply either mendacious, sophistic or ignorant to claim that the way Knox and Sollecito were acquitted maps directly onto something like the Scottish "not proven" verdict - and the attendant implication that "there's no smoke without fire" etc etc. Of course, the Scottish verdict system is currently being seriously examined both at a Scottish and European level, given that the "not proven" verdict is itself a nasty little relic of old inquisitorial "justice", and is totally incompatible with the prevailing jurisprudence principles among modern liberalised democracies. But hey-ho - if it keeps certain pro-guilt commentators happy to maintain their fallacious beliefs in things such as this, then that's up to them. The rest of us know about the truth and accuracy of the matter, fortunately.



* Leaving aside extraordinary types of acquittal such as those related to the defendant not being of sound mind, or where the statute of limitations has passed.

** The example most often and usefully employed here is a rape trial where the court determines that what took place was actually consensual sex and not the crime of rape: in those circumstances, an acquittal would take place that would map across to the Italian 530.1 nomenclature.

 

[Vixen]

The words are there: AK and RS are free. If the crime and their acquittal were in the UK, and this website were published in the UK you would not be able to write quite a bit of what you come up with. By the way insufficient evidence is how most acquittals in the U.K. come about wouldn't you agree?

Not in Scotland.

In any case, it is not a like for like comparison as in England & Wales it is rare for a defendant to be allowed an appeal and the prosecutor has no right of appeal.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ferguson was not 'exonerated', he had his conviction vacated, because one of the witnesses at the original trial was pressurised to withdrew their statement. Ferguson's co-defendant confessed to their committing the crime.

Not exactly. BOTH "witnesses" admitted they lied about Ferguson.

" In 2012, both Erickson and Trump recanted their trial testimony in statements obtained by Zellner and her investigator. In the subsequent habeas corpus hearing, both Erickson and Trump admitted that they lied at Ferguson's trial." (wiki)

Not only did they admit (not "pressurized") that they had lied, but "Erickson claimed that prosecutor Kevin Crane pressured him into implicating Ferguson." "Trump claimed that Crane pressured him into testifying against Ferguson" "The other janitor, Shawna Ornt, who witnessed the two men fleeing the parking lot eventually testified under oath that she had told the prosecutor that the man she saw the night of the murder was not Ferguson. She claims Crane repeatedly tried to get her to implicate him and that he became threatening during his last conversation with her. Despite being the sole witness who reported that she could identify the men at the scene, Shawna Ornt was never asked in court if she could identify Ferguson." Hmmmm....a prosecutor pressuring witnesses to inculpate an innocent person. Who would've thought?

Ferguson's conviction was vacated not only because the witnesses recanted their stories, but exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense.

"Other evidence that was withheld from the defense trial team was related to the time frame of the murder and Ferguson and Erickson's movements during the evening. Erickson testified at Ferguson's trial that: following the murder, he and Ferguson went back to the bar around 2:45am and were let into the bar by the same bouncer who had let them in the first time. He claimed on the stand that they left between 4 and 4:30 am.[8][18]
Kim Bennett, another bar patron who knew Ferguson and Erickson, testified that she saw Ferguson and Erickson leave the bar between 1:15*a.m. and 1:30 am. She was never called to testify at the trial and her statement was not disclosed to Ferguson's defense team. Mike Schook, the bouncer at the bar on the night of the murder, testified the bar closed at 1:30 am that evening, disproving Erickson's claims that they returned to the bar following the murders.[8][18]
Ferguson's conviction was vacated in November 2013 on the basis that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense team. "

So, yes, I'd say Ferguson has pretty much been exonerated. Of course, you can argue the legal semantics of it, but when the prosecution does not refile charges, I'd say it's because they know their entire case was crapola.

 

[toto]

Not in Scotland.

In any case, it is not a like for like comparison as in England & Wales it is rare for a defendant to be allowed an appeal and the prosecutor has no right of appeal.

Yes but I don't see how that particular point is pertinent to the legality of the Marasca verdict and how we perceive their acquittal. I would have thought both pro guilt and pro innocence would almost have the same thoughts on the way the Italian courts work. Both sides would presumably agree that the whole thing has been dragged out far too long, and both sides would have been happy to have an appeal when their respective verdicts went the wrong way from their point of view.
The point is : being acquitted for lack of evidence is a very honourable way of being found Not Guilty and a concept with which we are very familiar in England and Wales (as you say). There is no controversy!

 

[Bill Williams]

Not in Scotland.

In any case, it is not a like for like comparison as in England & Wales it is rare for a defendant to be allowed an appeal and the prosecutor has no right of appeal.

Wrong again, Vixen.

Google "Retrial of Serious Offences". E&W reformed double jeopardy laws.

 

[Stacyhs]

If it is the American Bar Association Rule 6.1, then it means an attorney can be disciplined if someone complains under this rule.

In effect, it is a duty = an obligation.

I see you provide no evidence that an attorney "can be disciplined" for not doing 50 hours of pro bono work a year.

An attorney, in some states, can be disciplined for not reporting pro bono work, but not for not doing pro bono work.

Some states require 50 hours of pro bono work before being admitted to the bar. Pro bono work is NOT required of practicing attorneys.

https://www.law360.com/articles/530036/mandatory-pro-bono-is-not-the-answer-for-practitioners

 

[Vixen]

Not exactly. BOTH "witnesses" admitted they lied about Ferguson.

" In 2012, both Erickson and Trump recanted their trial testimony in statements obtained by Zellner and her investigator. In the subsequent habeas corpus hearing, both Erickson and Trump admitted that they lied at Ferguson's trial." (wiki)

Not only did they admit (not "pressurized") that they had lied, but "Erickson claimed that prosecutor Kevin Crane pressured him into implicating Ferguson." "Trump claimed that Crane pressured him into testifying against Ferguson" "The other janitor, Shawna Ornt, who witnessed the two men fleeing the parking lot eventually testified under oath that she had told the prosecutor that the man she saw the night of the murder was not Ferguson. She claims Crane repeatedly tried to get her to implicate him and that he became threatening during his last conversation with her. Despite being the sole witness who reported that she could identify the men at the scene, Shawna Ornt was never asked in court if she could identify Ferguson." Hmmmm....a prosecutor pressuring witnesses to inculpate an innocent person. Who would've thought?

Ferguson's conviction was vacated not only because the witnesses recanted their stories, but exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense.

"Other evidence that was withheld from the defense trial team was related to the time frame of the murder and Ferguson and Erickson's movements during the evening. Erickson testified at Ferguson's trial that: following the murder, he and Ferguson went back to the bar around 2:45am and were let into the bar by the same bouncer who had let them in the first time. He claimed on the stand that they left between 4 and 4:30 am.[8][18]
Kim Bennett, another bar patron who knew Ferguson and Erickson, testified that she saw Ferguson and Erickson leave the bar between 1:15*a.m. and 1:30 am. She was never called to testify at the trial and her statement was not disclosed to Ferguson's defense team. Mike Schook, the bouncer at the bar on the night of the murder, testified the bar closed at 1:30 am that evening, disproving Erickson's claims that they returned to the bar following the murders.[8][18]
Ferguson's conviction was vacated in November 2013 on the basis that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense team. "

So, yes, I'd say Ferguson has pretty much been exonerated. Of course, you can argue the legal semantics of it, but when the prosecution does not refile charges, I'd say it's because they know their entire case was crapola.

Trump? Shurely shome mishtake...? ROFL.

I like the way people suddenly make weird confessions out of the blue when Zellner's around. No doubt she'll be beating a path to Charles Manson's deathbed to get him to confess to a few crimes some of her clients are convicted of (perhaps the Theresa Halbach one) so that when he pops his clogs, they can all be similarly 'exonerated'.

A sceptical person might scoff...


Note your own term, 'vacated'. It does NOT mean 'exonerated'.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong again, Vixen.

Google "Retrial of Serious Offences". E&W reformed double jeopardy laws.

What? We were talking about types of acquittal. Toto and LJ claim there is only one. But then they would.

 

[Vixen]

Yes but I don't see how that particular point is pertinent to the legality of the Marasca verdict and how we perceive their acquittal. I would have thought both pro guilt and pro innocence would almost have the same thoughts on the way the Italian courts work. Both sides would presumably agree that the whole thing has been dragged out far too long, and both sides would have been happy to have an appeal when their respective verdicts went the wrong way from their point of view.
The point is : being acquitted for lack of evidence is a very honourable way of being found Not Guilty and a concept with which we are very familiar in England and Wales (as you say). There is no controversy!

That is special pleading. One minute, the PIP moan that the police were 'too quick to prosecute', when in fact it was some eight months before they were charged. Then Raff's defence attorney wanted maternity leave for a few months, and leading up to that, she could only manage court up to two days a week. Once again, the PIP moan that 'this takes too long' yet stalling was the game the defence was playing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong again, Vixen.

Google "Retrial of Serious Offences". E&W reformed double jeopardy laws.

Well, to be fair on that point, a retrial of a previously-acquitted person on the same (or similar/related) charge can only ever be considered if the Court of Appeal is first persuaded that significant new inculpatory evidence has emerged since the original trial, which - had it been available at the time of the original trial - might reasonably have resulted in conviction. And then after than, the charging authority (the CPS) still has to evaluate whether a retrial is a) in the public interest, and b) judged to have a greater than 50% chance of resulting in a conviction.


However, one point I'd raise on the issue of it being rare in E&W for convicted persons to receive appeals: while that is perfectly true, it's also perfectly true that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, people are tried in E&W in courts-of-first-instance which are competent, fair and just, and in which the correct decision (whether conviction or acquittal) is almost always reached correctly first time.

By contrast, the three-trial system in Italy is a total joke, and it makes a mockery of the court of first instance (relegating it, in effect, to the role of another committal court). On top of that, the astonishing number of verdicts which get revised or overturned beyond the first-instance level is a damning indictment of the whole system, and can only serve to illustrate just how broken and incompetent the process is. Simply put, there is zero reason why one single, properly-constituted court cannot assess the case and return one single, safe verdict in almost every case. Indeed, it's immediately obvious to see how there are actually advantages to such a system: it means that all the evidence and testimony must be seen, heard and argued before just one single court at first hand.

In essence, a conviction or acquittal in the court of first instance in Italy is semi-meaningless, since a totally different court will look at the case afresh and see if the verdict of the first court is "correct" or "incorrect". Looked at correctly and logically, therefore, this canard of "oh isn't Italy's 3-trial system so much better and fairer to the defendant than, say, the system in E&W or the USA" is actually almost wholly incorrect. Personally-speaking, I certainly know with total certainty that if I were to ever be charged with a serious crime (especially if I factually had not committed that crime) I'd always choose the E&W or US system (provided I had proper legal representation and a fair trial) than the Italian system. Every single time.I'd be many orders of magnitude more confident of a fair and just outcome.

 

[Vixen]

Yes but I don't see how that particular point is pertinent to the legality of the Marasca verdict and how we perceive their acquittal. I would have thought both pro guilt and pro innocence would almost have the same thoughts on the way the Italian courts work. Both sides would presumably agree that the whole thing has been dragged out far too long, and both sides would have been happy to have an appeal when their respective verdicts went the wrong way from their point of view.
The point is : being acquitted for lack of evidence is a very honourable way of being found Not Guilty and a concept with which we are very familiar in England and Wales (as you say). There is no controversy!

In England & Wales, being acquitted for 'insufficient evidence' is a pre-trial ambit, and means, 'charges dropped' before trial. It means charges can still be brought later.

Normally, there is just a 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' verdict, after trial, but sometimes there is an acquittal due to a 'mistrial'. For example, jurors unable to agree; they heard or saw something that meant a fair trial was not possible, or more rarely, as in the case of pop star Tulisa, there was some corruption in bringing the charges at all (a newspaper hack calling himself a Sheik encouraged Tulisa's bodyguard to buy some drugs, and then wrote a story for NOTW exposing it - this was considered an illegal act by the hack since he procured the crime).

 

[LondonJohn]

I see you provide no evidence that an attorney "can be disciplined" for not doing 50 hours of pro bono work a year.

An attorney, in some states, can be disciplined for not reporting pro bono work, but not for not doing pro bono work.

Some states require 50 hours of pro bono work before being admitted to the bar. Pro bono work is NOT required of practicing attorneys.

https://www.law360.com/articles/530036/mandatory-pro-bono-is-not-the-answer-for-practitioners

Does Vixen have a problem understanding that where ABA Rule 6.1 "states that lawyers should aspire to render--without fee--at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year".....

.... the highlighted and bolded words are not equivalent to.....

must render (with the possibility of disciplinary action if this does not occur)

Strange, n'est-ce pas? Especially so, given the fondness round these parts for the exquisite precision of "legal jargon", huh.....?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, to be fair on that point, a retrial of a previously-acquitted person on the same (or similar/related) charge can only ever be considered if the Court of Appeal is first persuaded that significant new inculpatory evidence has emerged since the original trial, which - had it been available at the time of the original trial - might reasonably have resulted in conviction. And then after than, the charging authority (the CPS) still has to evaluate whether a retrial is a) in the public interest, and b) judged to have a greater than 50% chance of resulting in a conviction.

All true.

In Canada, the Crown once appealed an acquittal on the grounds that it, the Crown, had not received a fair trial.

 

[Numbers]

Pro-bono refers to free advocacy. However, people like Kellner and Scheck, whilst they might claim to be pro-bono, really mean 'contingency fee' or 'no win/no fee'. This is why it is not worth their while taking on a case, pro-bono or not - unless there is a possibility of a handsome payout, of which they will make sure their engagement letter sets out how much they will take as their share of any successful proceeds.

Don't believe me? So how come Zellner only takes on high-profile cases, such as Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson or Mario Cascarios?

Well, take a look at her Revenues. Big $$$'s for her.

His advocate, Barry Scheck, is making $'millions out of calling vacated convictions 'exoneration'.

You will have to translate that for me.

Ghoul lawyer Kathleen Zellner was bragging about making >£2m in fees last year. Such a blood-sucking vulture: she gives all other unscrupulous lawyers a bad name - not an easy feat! - she doesn't seriously believe 'The police framed Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson and Mario Cascarios'.

As the prosecutor said about Cascarios's latest demand for an 'Innocent Certificate' so that he can sue for millions (and no doubt this is the aim of Amanda Knox in her fake innocence gigs) :

“The defendant wishes to recast himself as the victim. He is not. The real victim is lying nameless in an unmarked, unhallowed grave. The defendant’s disinterest, deceit and contempt manifested during the investigation of a child’s disappearance from his family’s own store exposed his callousness and consciousness of guilty,” Kenneally said in his objection to the defense’s petition. “His evident involvement in that child’s demise and current pretensions of innocence, exposes his treachery.”

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2017/...ciaro-wants-certificate-of-innocence/a510ir1/

First thing that comes up on the search engines:




There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.

Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted of. It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim.

Vixen, I believe I have not quoted you out of context, and the above quotes of your posts support that belief. I did not claim that you had said all the cases were innocence fraud - but you clearly have stated in those posts, with calumnies directed at specific named lawyers, that these lawyers were seeking financial gain by seeking to overturn convictions unjustly or for "technicalities".

 

[toto]

That is special pleading. One minute, the PIP moan that the police were 'too quick to prosecute', when in fact it was some eight months before they were charged. Then Raff's defence attorney wanted maternity leave for a few months, and leading up to that, she could only manage court up to two days a week. Once again, the PIP moan that 'this takes too long' yet stalling was the game the defence was playing.

I am not pleading anything. The middle part of my post was, I thought an uncontroversial point: seven years is a long time to sort this crime out: I wasn't trying to pick an argument with you over it.
My point is just that the concept of being found not guilty owing to lack of evidence is not at all alien to any English person and therefore controversial in any way. I don't see how the appeal system is relevant to that point, though I understand the broad point you are trying to make which is: the systems are different so you can't compare in any way.

 

[LondonJohn]

All true.

In Canada, the Crown once appealed an acquittal on the grounds that it, the Crown, had not received a fair trial.

In E&W, that could/would never be allowed as a justification in the prosecution of a private citizen by the state. If the court - which is an instrument of the government - conducts a trial that is unfair to the state to the (potential) point of unfairly acquitting a private defendant, then it's held that the defendant cannot be retried: if the instruments of the state and its government cock up a trial in such a way, then the state and government are not allowed a second bite at the cherry.

However, it's perhaps also worth pointing out that in E&W, while prosecutors cannot appeal a verdict (a no-double-jeopardy retrial with significant new evidence being a different matter), the state can (and occasionally does) appeal sentences that it believes are unduly lenient. That occurs via an appeal from the Attorney General on behalf of the state.

 

[toto]

In England & Wales, being acquitted for 'insufficient evidence' is a pre-trial ambit, and means, 'charges dropped' before trial. It means charges can still be brought later.

Normally, there is just a 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' verdict, after trial, but sometimes there is an acquittal due to a 'mistrial'. For example, jurors unable to agree; they heard or saw something that meant a fair trial was not possible, or more rarely, as in the case of pop star Tulisa, there was some corruption in bringing the charges at all (a newspaper hack calling himself a Sheik encouraged Tulisa's bodyguard to buy some drugs, and then wrote a story for NOTW exposing it - this was considered an illegal act by the hack since he procured the crime).

The point I am making is that in a jury room, when a jury has to weigh up the evidence for and against guilt, if there isn't enough evidence to convict then they are acquitted. No big deal. Sometimes people are presumably acquitted when they are factually guilty and sometimes people are found guilty when they are actually innocent.

 

[Vixen]

Does Vixen have a problem understanding that where ABA Rule 6.1 "states that lawyers should aspire to render--without fee--at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year".....

.... the highlighted and bolded words are not equivalent to.....

must render (with the possibility of disciplinary action if this does not occur)

Strange, n'est-ce pas? Especially so, given the fondness round these parts for the exquisite precision of "legal jargon", huh.....?

No, no, no. I said it means a member of public - or anybody - can bring a complaint to the bar standard quoting Rule 6/1, and they are obliged to investigate it. Why? Because it is set out in the rules. Therefore, it is obvious it becomes a duty = obligation, if the barrister wants to avoid being complained of.

In the UK bar standard there is a code of conduct and anybody can complain about a perceived breach. It covers the following broad areas:

CD1 You must observe your duty to the court in the administration of justice [CD1].
CD2 You must act in the best interests of each client [CD2].
CD3 You must act with honesty and integrity [CD3].
CD4 You must maintain your independence [CD4].
CD5 You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the
public places in you or in the profession [CD5].
CD6 You must keep the affairs of each client confidential [CD6].
CD7 You must provide a competent standard of work and service to each client [CD7]
CD8 You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person [CD8].
CD9 You must be open and co-operative with your regulators [CD9].
CD10 You must take reasonable steps to manage your practice, or carry out your role within
your practice, competently and in such a way as to achieve compliance with your legal and
regulatory obligations [CD10].