Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

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.

But this goes beyond any ruling from the Supreme Court, no? As far as I can see no court has ever ruled that the first interrogation/interview was illegally obtained. As discussed, it seems to be acceptable enough to have been used in court.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

No, witness statements don't become inadmissible if the witness eventually becomes a subject. Witness statements are admissible even when the witness does not have legal representation. Apparently, though, the Supreme Court concluded that Amanda was a suspect when the first statement was taken, otherwise they would not have ruled it inadmissible.

As for why both statements were admissible in Patrick's civil trial, I am going to guess Amanda's lawyers would have had to ask for them to be tossed out specifically for that trial as well as for the criminal trial. I anticipated your question in my last response to Rose.

 

[Mary_H]

But this goes beyond any ruling from the Supreme Court, no? As far as I can see no court has ever ruled that the first interrogation/interview was illegally obtained.

Then why was it ruled inadmissible?

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

You may be right about that. The cops are allowed to suggest things to a certain extent, which is technically not illegal. Whether her statement should have been taken as believable is another matter.

Since the SC ruled that the second statement could not be used against anyone, that statement should not have been allowed in Patrick's civil case and should not have come up at all in Amanda's case, in my opinion. How can that statement harm Patrick if it could not be used against him? They had already begun preparations to arrest him after her first statement.

 

[shuttlt]

No, witness statements don't become inadmissible if the witness eventually becomes a subject. Witness statements are admissible even when the witness does not have legal representation. Apparently, though, the Supreme Court concluded that Amanda was a suspect when the first statement was taken, otherwise they would not have ruled it inadmissible.

Interesting. Perhaps my memory has failed me again, or I was relying on the wrong people the last time I discussed this. I will reread and come back to you.

[Darn it. The Supreme Court stuff was on the old perugiashock wasn't it? I'll have to dig out an old copy.]

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Under a true poisonous tree analysis, I believe that the "gift" statement would be questionable as well, since it was created as a consequence of the illegal interrogation.

 

[Mary_H]

God, there's a huge spider on my ceiling. Gotta go get a jar.

ETA: Alas, I had to commit arachnocide. He fell onto the floor instead of into the jar. >>Shiver<<

 

[Diocletus]

Interesting. Perhaps my memory has failed me again, or I was relying on the wrong people the last time I discussed this. I will reread and come back to you.

I was under the impression that a witness statement, made without the presence of counsel, could not be admitted against the person making the statement, but could be admitted against other people.

Suspect statements made without counsel are not admissible against anyone, unless they are "spontaneous." It seems to be Mignini's m.o. to interrogate illegally and then claim that the fruits of his interrogation are "spontaneous" in an attempt to evade this law.

The Supreme Court, however, said the the 5:45 statement was not admissible, which means that it was not spontaneous and Mignini had violated Knox's right to counsel. Mignini is now lying about this in his interviews.

 

[RoseMontague]

Then why was it ruled inadmissible?

Only the part where she incriminates herself is inadmissible. The supreme court did not consider her a suspect until after her first statement.

 

[Mary_H]

Under a true poisonous tree analysis, I believe that the "gift" statement would be questionable as well, since it was created as a consequence of the illegal interrogation.

I agree that it certainly should have been. Even though Amanda gave it to the police, they didn't have to accept it. They were responsible for upholding the law that says statements should not be taken from a suspect who is without legal representation.

 

[Mary_H]

Only the part where she incriminates herself is inadmissible. The supreme court did not consider her a suspect until after her first statement.

Then why was the part where she incriminated herself made inadmissible?

 

[RoseMontague]

I was under the impression that a witness statement, made without the presence of counsel, could not be admitted against the person making the statement, but could be admitted against other people.

Suspect statements made without counsel are not admissible against anyone, unless they are "spontaneous." It seems to be Mignini's m.o. to interrogate illegally and then claim that the fruits of his interrogation are "spontaneous" in an attempt to evade this law.

The Supreme Court, however, said the the 5:45 statement was not admissible, which means that it was not spontaneous and Mignini had violated Knox's right to counsel. Mignini is now lying about this in his interviews.

Spontaneous statements are allowed without counsel under Italian law if they are deemed "defensive" statements (like what I said before that incriminated me was false). The Supreme Court ruled her hand written memorial to be a "defensive" statement, which is another argument altogether.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is what the SC said about the memorial:

Instead, a memorial written in English by K. and translated into Italian is fully usable, pursuant to art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, because it is derived from asking document, which was the spontaneous author material for defensive purposes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Then why was the part where she incriminated herself made inadmissible?

Italian law says anything that a witness states under interrogation without a lawyer and not taped cannot be used against them. It is designed to protect the witness from incriminating themselves.

 

[Mary_H]

Then why was the part where she incriminated herself made inadmissible?

Okay, I see what you mean: Here is what Carlo dalla Vedova said in court:

CDV: The genericity of the question relative to the interrogation of November 6th must be specified. I recall that this document was declared unusable by the Supreme Court. Decision of April 1, 2008. So whenever we refer to the time period of the 5th and 6th of November, when you refer to transcripts from November 6 in a plural form, it is absolutely necessary to give a time reference for the interrogation being referred to. Because there is one transcript which was declared inadmissible and the other admissible against others but not against Amanda.

CDV: I was asking to speak about the use of the transcripts of November 6. "Peregrina" [bizarre] -- now that she answered, you see there is no more artifice or impediment, we can talk. One thing is, that the declarations-- the sommarie informazioni testimoniali of 1:45 given without the pubblico ministero, and the spontaneous declarations of 5:45 with the pubblico ministero, should be correctly considered as constitutive elements and body of evidence as for being objective elements in the crime of slander. Another thing is their admissibility for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. Because, the second [5:45 declarations] were declared to be totally inadmissible erga omnes [for any purpose] since they were violating the right to defense of a person who was substantially a suspect. This is written by the first section of the Supreme Court. The first [1:45 declarations] are not admissible contra se [against oneself], against Amanda, since those declarations were being released by the same person who was to become a suspect for that crime. So, in what concerns the acquisition of these documents for the trial dossier, as by our knowledge, we know their content, they can be there. But on the issue of their admissibility for any future question, the second ones, the ones where the PM was present, are absolutely not admissible here. The first ones are not admissible against Amanda. We would like to state this.

CDV: Presidente, I renew the objection to the use of the transcript of 5:45, it has been declared inadmissible, and so it is surprising that the defense lawyer for the civil plaintiff insists on making references to this document which, as we have already said at various times, in relation to the Supreme Court ruling, was declared inadmissible, so cannot be used or even mentioned. I don't see how my colleague can continue insisting and reiterating his questions on facts which are contained in this document. I find this really quite an excess.

So it does look like the first statement was ruled inadmissible to use against Amanda because she became a suspect afterward. What I said to shuttlt was wrong.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is why the cops don't like to name someone an official suspect until they have the goods. Once they do so their options in terms of interrogation with no taping or lawyer present goes out the window.

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting. Perhaps my memory has failed me again, or I was relying on the wrong people the last time I discussed this. I will reread and come back to you.

[Darn it. The Supreme Court stuff was on the old perugiashock wasn't it? I'll have to dig out an old copy.]

I was mistaken when I wrote, "No, witness statements don't become inadmissible if the witness eventually becomes a subject." I apologize.

 

[RoseMontague]

Okay, I see what you mean: Here is what Carlo dalla Vedova said in court:



So it does look like the first statement was ruled inadmissible to use against Amanda because she became a suspect afterward. What I said to shuttlt was wrong.

I also believe what the lawyer here said is correct. The 5:45AM statement should not have been allowed in even the slander case.

 

[Mary_H]

Italian law says anything that a witness states under interrogation without a lawyer and not taped cannot be used against them. It is designed to protect the witness from incriminating themselves.

Thanks, Rose. You know a lot more about this than I do.

 

[shuttlt]

I was under the impression that a witness statement, made without the presence of counsel, could not be admitted against the person making the statement, but could be admitted against other people.

This is broadly what I understood.

Suspect statements made without counsel are not admissible against anyone, unless they are "spontaneous."

What does "spontaneous" mean here? The overwhelming majority of witness statements are surely taken without counsel. I thought whether things were spontaneous normally came up in the context of the second statement.

It seems to be Mignini's m.o. to interrogate illegally and then claim that the fruits of his interrogation are "spontaneous" in an attempt to evade this law.

I wasn't aware of other examples of this. Perhaps they came along when I wasn't following the case. Are there many such examples?

The Supreme Court, however, said the the 5:45 statement was not admissible, which means that it was not spontaneous and Mignini had violated Knox's right to counsel. Mignini is now lying about this in his interviews.

It might mean that, but I don't see that it necessarily means that.