Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

When the Supreme Court ruled both of Amanda's statements inadmissible, they essentially were agreeing that Mignini and the police broke the law. For Mignini to sue her would just draw attention to that. Otherwise, both the Supreme Court and the lawyers seem to be okay with just letting it go.

Mary, could you clarify which law specifically they broke and what punishments are associated with breaking it. There often seems to be an equivalence drawn here between the testimony being inadmissible and them having broken the law. Do you mean illegal in the sense of a chess move being illegal, but not in the sense of criminally illegal?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Mary, could you clarify which law specifically they broke and what punishments are associated with breaking it. There often seems to be an equivalence drawn here between the testimony being inadmissible and them having broken the law. Do you mean illegal in the sense of a chess move being illegal, but not in the sense of criminally illegal?

About the same as a US Cop forgetting to read a suspect their miranda rights and not getting them a lawyer when they ask. It's not going to get them jailed, but it will get everything they get from it thrown out as Fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, could you clarify which law specifically they broke and what punishments are associated with breaking it. There often seems to be an equivalence drawn here between the testimony being inadmissible and them having broken the law. Do you mean illegal in the sense of a chess move being illegal, but not in the sense of criminally illegal?

I don't know the specific law. Apparently, the only punishment associated with it is that you don't get to use what you obtained from a suspect unless you provided them with a lawyer.

I don't know if it's a chess move rule or a criminal law. Here is what one Italian legal expert said:

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...da-Knox-s-guilt-will-881847.php#ixzz1RVPSiuDP

If the law had not been broken, the statements would have been admissible, I presume.

 

[shuttlt]

If the law had not been broken, the statements would have been admissible, I presume.

But aspects of this evidence were admissible in relation to the slander? All evidence that is inadmissible isn't inadmissible because the law has been broken.

 

[Mary_H]

This may be the law we're after: Article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. Here is what Mignini wrote in his e-mail to Linda Byron, a Seattle TV journalist:

All I did was to apply the Italian law of proceedings. I really cannot understand. Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.

Since all that I did was to rigorously apply the laws of the state having jurisdiction in both these instances, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you have raised with me.

Thank you to PMF for translating.

ETA: And Article 63

 

[Mary_H]

But aspects of this evidence were admissible in relation to the slander? All evidence that is inadmissible isn't inadmissible because the law has been broken.

Sorry, I don't follow. Could you clarify?

 

[shuttlt]

About the same as a US Cop forgetting to read a suspect their miranda rights and not getting them a lawyer when they ask. It's not going to get them jailed, but it will get everything they get from it thrown out as Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I don't know about this. For the first statement they weren't arrested, but it was inadmissible for reasons that we are all well aware of. I guess if you take the view that she should have been officially made a suspect before she said the stuff about being present during the crime, then there is some equivalence. I'll have to think about the Mignini part, but that was the bit that was admissible for the slander, no?

 

[RoseMontague]

If anything, it would probably fall under that nebulous abuse of office category punishable by a "oh no you didn't", letting you keep your job, encouraging you to take part in appeal trials of your own cases, and letting you send criminal reports to yourself for investigation.

 

[shuttlt]

Sorry, I don't follow. Could you clarify?

Sorry, I thought I remembered that parts of these statements got into the case because they were allowed as part of the slander, is this not the case?

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't know about this. For the first statement they weren't arrested, but it was inadmissible for reasons that we are all well aware of. I guess if you take the view that she should have been officially made a suspect before she said the stuff about being present during the crime, then there is some equivalence. I'll have to think about the Mignini part, but that was the bit that was admissible for the slander, no?

The first statement was admissible to be used against others, in this case Patrick.

The light of those principles, the statements made by AMK at 1.45 on 6 November, 2007, of which the report was suspended and she was placed at the disposal of the judicial proceeding, emerging evidence against him, are can only be used against alios, while "spontaneous declarations" of 5.54 hours or can not be used against the suspect or against other persons accused of complicity in that crime, without the guarantees made as part of a defensive person who had already formally assumed the role of suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, I thought I remembered that parts of these statements got into the case because they were allowed as part of the slander, is this not the case?

I believe the slander charge is the result of Amanda's testimony in court, saying she had been hit by the police officers. It doesn't refer to her two statements.

 

[Mary_H]

The first statement was admissible to be used against others, in this case Patrick.

Wasn't Patrick out of the picture by the time the admissibility question went to the Supreme Court?

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, I thought I remembered that parts of these statements got into the case because they were allowed as part of the slander, is this not the case?

OH, I get it -- you mean Patrick's slander case against Amanda. Yes, they were allowed for his civil trial. Sorry about that.

 

[shuttlt]

This may be the law we're after: Article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. Here is what Mignini wrote in his e-mail to Linda Byron, a Seattle TV journalist:



Thank you to PMF for translating.

ETA: And Article 63

But this is surely Mignini saying he didn't break the law and explaining why the initial interview/interrogation was stopped. Obviously in Mignini's account the authorities are honorable and good and didn't break the law. The first interview/interrogation is still inadmissible though as they were speaking to the police as witnesses up until that point.

 

[shuttlt]

The first statement was admissible to be used against others, in this case Patrick.

Thanks Rose, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Doesn't this make it seem like this statement at least isn't regarded as fruit of a poisoned tree?

 

[Mary_H]

But this is surely Mignini saying he didn't break the law and explaining why the initial interview/interrogation was stopped. Obviously in Mignini's account the authorities are honorable and good and didn't break the law. The first interview/interrogation is still inadmissible though as they were speaking to the police as witnesses up until that point.

Yes, that is Mignini saying he didn't break the law and the police didn't, either. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled both statements inadmissible because of the law being broken.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks Rose, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Doesn't this make it seem like this statement at least isn't regarded as fruit of a poisoned tree?

Only if you believe that Patrick wasn't suggested to her.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, that is Mignini saying he didn't break the law and the police didn't, either. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled both statements inadmissible because of the law being broken.

I don't understand you. Interviews with witnesses are not allowed to be used against them if they end up becoming suspects and getting themselves arrested. Hence the first interview/interrogation isn't admissible against them, but as was mentioned it's OK to use otherwise. Are you saying that any interview with a witness is illegal if at some stage later they become a suspect? I don't think you can be saying that, so I don't think I understand what you are saying.

 

[Mary_H]

Only if you believe that Patrick wasn't suggested to her.

I'm thinking that Amanda's lawyers could have asked the Supreme Court to rule her statements inadmissible in Patrick's civil case, too, because of the lack of representation. Maybe they chose not to, because they realized that if the allegations Amanda had made against Patrick were found to be false, it would increase the likelihood (in the jury's eyes) that the incriminating admissions Amanda had made about herself would prove to be false, too.

Incredibly, Patrick won his case by showing the allegations against him were false, while the prosecution won its case by saying the allegations Amanda made against herself were true, even though all the allegations were contained in the same two documents.

 

[shuttlt]

Only if you believe that Patrick wasn't suggested to her.

Rose, I don't follow. The interview/interrogation was allowed to be used as evidence in another case. I don't see how your opinion, or mine about whether and to what extent Patrick was suggested to her alters that alters how the courts viewed the statement. They regarded it as admissible, and not the fruit of a tainted tree. Perhaps they were wrong, but that's they view that was taken.