Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

One basic problem in your assessment about the system and of this case, is that your focus is limited to the possibility of failure or problems in the earlier phase, you seem to consider only the early phase before the implementation of that status of formal suspect.
This is opposed to the philosophy of the inquisitorial system from the roots. This kind of system places the defendants' protection on tools which the defendants can use subsequently. The key protection in the system is given by the suspects' possibility of complaint. The anglo saxon principles emphasizes protections that work as preemptive functions, the inquisitorial systems emphasize protections and warrant that apply as possibility of correction. I believe the philosophy of the second system to be safer. I think early protections are mainly teorethical, while their use is dangerous in practice, and this goes both for the suspect and for collectivity.

So, the fact itself that a weak person in a situation he/she perceives as problematic, may act wrongfully, is a danger in this system but also in others, the key factor however is that a wrong declaration to the police can be easilly corrected in this system, because the suspect is given full freedom to speak and to speak with a chain of preliminary judges and magistrates within the subsequent days and weeks.
The failure of using this opportunities for clarification of her position during the investigation phase, is what creates the evidence against Amanda. You could justify or excuse a suspect who made illicit declarations because of his/her weakness while was not protected while being a witness. But you cannot do this if the suspect has then been unable to provide clarification also in the following period of time when was given faculties and legal tools and counsuel to defend himself/herself.
Amanda and her defense failed to give any consistent explanation before the preliminary investigation judge on nov. 8 even in the form of spontaneous statement, failed to make spontaneous statements before Patrick's release and before Guede's capture, failed to answer or give consistent statements on the topic before the magistrate on dec 17., before the Riesame Tribunal on January and before the preliminary judge in summer, and failed to release any oral or written spontaneous statement providing any consistent position over all this period of time.

Ermmmmm...... are you under the impression that the criminal justice system in Italy is still inquisitorial in nature? If you are, then the problem is even worse than I thought.

 

[Machiavelli]

.....

"Full freedom to speak"? She had a right to remain silent. So you are saying that in order for this system to correct a human rights violation that has already occurred, a suspect is compelled to reliquish her right to remain silent? Absurd.

But there is no human rights violation. This assertion is absurd.

Even if there were a human rights violation - but there is non - a human rights violation must be claimed. Always, not just in these occasions. You cannot "assume" human rights violations without any victim's claim.

 

[Diocletus]

These are Carlo Pacelli's buisness. He serves the interest of his client. Moreover he is not talking about the murder, he is not supposed to show evidence of guilt of murder. He only brings srguments about the crime of calunnia. The crime of calunnia has an important psychological element, the charge rests entirely on malice.

Malice would be the specific intent to do harm to Lumumba. Pacelli's name calling has nothing to do with such malice of Knox; it just highlights the malice of Pacelli/Lumumba.

Anyway, I'm sure that Carlo will be receiving his check from Knox any day now. Lumumba's interviews calling her more names will definitely speed the mail along.

Knox will gladly pay Lumumba because she is rich. After all, she had $4,000 dollars in her account when she was arrested. She couldn't work much recently, being in jail and all that, but if she invested it wisely in Italian stocks over the last 4 years, she probably has like $1,200 left. She might owe her own lawyers a few dollars, but Carlo and Patrick will definitely get whatever is left over. Keep checking the mail.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ermmmmm...... are you under the impression that the criminal justice system in Italy is still inquisitorial in nature? If you are, then the problem is even worse than I thought.

The system has some inquisitorial aspects. It is predominantly adversarial in the trial phase. But has inquisitorial structures which are very operational in the preliminary investigation phase. Any system in which a judge has investigation powers is inquisitorial.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quit false insinuations: I did not "artfully dodge" any question. I do not answer if I deem answering is inappropriate or unimportant or if I forget.

It happens that I don't know Giuseppe Castellini at all, never met him, and I don't live in Umbria.

But one thing has to be made clear: as a principle of policy, I do not answer to any question concerning relations with journalists (or about any possible or alleged relation with journalists).

Um, when you say that "I do not answer if I deem answering is inappropriate or unimportant", I call that "artfully dodging". I do not say that I (or others) have any sort of right to know the answer, and I would have happily accepted a response along the lines that you either didn't want to answer the question or felt that it would be inappropriate for you to do so.

But in any case, it's interesting to know that you don't know Castellini. I also found your use of the phrase "as a principle of policy" in relation to non-disclosure of relationships with journalists to be very interesting indeed: it tends to imply that the issue of your relationships with journalists is something that is a) significant in relation to your job, and b) something that you encounter regularly (otherwise you wouldn't have developed a "principle of policy").

Who you actually are, and the relationship you have to the Kercher murder investigation (and the Knox/Sollecito trials) is of course not your obligation to disclose. And I definitely do not intend to either put you under any pressure to disclose that information, or to engage in any "undercover sleuthing" in any kind of attempt to "out" you (I believe that a particular subgroup of commentators on this case has cornered the market in this sort of behaviour anyhow.....). But I can't say I'm not very intrigued.

 

[Diocletus]

But there is no human rights violation. This assertion is absurd.

Even if there were a human rights violation - but there is non - a human rights violation must be claimed. Always, not just in these occasions. You cannot "assume" human rights violations without any victim's claim.

She didn't claim a human rights violation? I guess that's bad news for the cops' slander case against Amanda. Anyway, she has clearly claimed that her statement was coerced--even Massei addresses this point, as incompetent as he is.

How about the part where she said in the gift note that the cops hit her? Ever wonder why that note wasn't part of the calunnia conviction like you were trying to argue? It's because she said in the note that they "hit" her. Where is the investigation of this? And don't tell me they don't need one because it's "inquisitorial."

Another human rights violation is the cops drafting a document containing a false accusation and then having a person the cops believed to be involved in the crime sign the document. We don't need a "claim" to identify the misconduct--we can see it with our own eyes.

 

[Diocletus]

Any system in which a judge has investigation powers is inquisitorial.

We're talking about th cops here. The cops are the ones who conducted the illegal interrogation of a suspect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Simpson case

I feel we are going round in circles re. the DNA evidence, its all very reminiscent of the OJ case which at least proves that the Italian police are not alone in bungling cases such as these. There was only one drop of Merediths blood in Filomenas room but somehow Amanda managed to stick her foot in it. She came home to a trainwreck of an apartment and decided to take a shower in a blood-spattered bathroom...this woman must be a nightmare to all DNA collectors!

Then there is the fact - undeniable! - that she lied from the very first minute long before the police even entered the scene.

Oh and then there was the fact that both she and Sollecito switched off their mobiles on the night of the murder.

Yes I suppose the handstands, cartwheels, lack of concern for the victim, poking tongues out, laughing, kissing bf can all be put down to an interesting way or coping with stress.

madrigal,

The DNA evidence in the Simpson case did not involve STR typing, let alone low template number work. Pages 36-38 in John Butler's textbook, Forensic DNA typing list four separate instances in which the defense alleged evidence tampering. I am not seeing much in the way of similarity to the present case. Maybe you can clarify it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nancy Grace's tag team partner

Wendy Murphy still has not mastered the basic facts of the case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Neither Wendy Murphy, nor Charles Mudede:

I had missed this, but I see Charles Mudede - who posted this one day after the acquittal verdict - is still believing she "got off on a technicality", rather than Hellman finding there was no evidence, and ruling that Knox and Sollecito "did not commit these crimes":

The Strange Case of Amanda Knox
posted by CHARLES MUDEDE on TUE, OCT 4, 2011

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/04/the-strange-case-of-amanda-knox

 

[smkovalinksy]

Lest we forget: what happens to steve moore and to pepperdine now that amanda knox has been acquitted?

Steve Moore was fired from his job as Deputy Director of Public Safety at Pepperdine University shortly after publicly suggesting that Amanda Knox might not be guilty of murder. Knox's conviction was overturned on appeal. Pepperdine owns property and has an overseas study-abroad program in Florence, Italy. Moore sued Pepperdine for wrongful termination. Pepperdine settled the case out of court.

Now that Amanda Knox’s murder conviction in Italy has been overturned, the fallout from Amanda Knox’s acquittal has begun. And because of the peculiar actions of Pepperdine University in 2010, the case affects some of us here at home, specifically with regard to issues of free speech, intellectual freedom, and social justice.

Let us ask the question: what happens to Pepperdine now that Amanda Knox has been acquitted?

http://robertcargill.com/2011/10/03...dine-now-that-amanda-knox-has-been-acquitted/

 

[Bob001]

In fact, popular judge selection in Italy is arbitrary to the degree of being random. As I understand it, there is a random selection of local citizens between the ages of 30 and 65 who have previously elected to place themselves on a "registry of popular judges" - this means that by not opting in, one can eliminate the possibility of ever being a popular judge. ...

Once an individual has placed himself/herself on the registry of popular judges, (s)he is obliged to serve on the judicial panel if selected. ...

It seems to me that there is both a fundamental strength and a fundamental flaw in the Italian system of popular judge selection. The strength is that there is no opportunity for prosecutors or defence lawyers to attempt to shape the jury (which is potentially contrary to natural justice, and which is very often a very time-consuming and costly process). The flaw is twofold: firstly, the jurors selected randomly may be totally unsuitable for the particular trial (they may, for example, have known the victim or the defendents); and secondly, the very process of opting in to to registry of popular judges is open to suggestions that those who elect to opt in are not properly representative of the population (for example, many people in regular employment probably consciously choose not to place themselves on the registry, and the registry likely attracts a disproportionate number of individuals who are actively attracted to the idea of judging people).

This is extremely significant. In the U.S., getting people to serve on juries is a continuing struggle, and many jurisdictions have tried to make it as painless as possible by establishing "one day, one trial" plans and similar systems. The process generally is that jurisdictions compile lists of prospective jurors from voter rolls, drivers licenses and other public records, and send summons to people selected randomly, usually by computer. They are assigned to appear on a specific date and time, and they are required to complete a questionnaire about themselves and return it to the court. Typically fewer than half, sometimes fewer than a third, of people who receive these summons return the questionnaire. Of those who do, a substantial percentage don't show up on their court day -- and having returned the questionnaire, they can't claim that they never got the summons. In some jurisdictions, the police or sheriff will actually go out looking for jurors who don't show up, arrest them and bring them to court, where they can be held in contempt. In a big city, hundreds of people are called to jury duty every day to ensure that enough will show up for the courts to function. Once at court, jurors are assigned to selection panels for particular cases, and they participate in voir dire questioning, where the judge and lawyers for both sides ask them if they know any party connected to the case, if they have prior knowledge, if they have been victims of crime, if they have opinions about the case, etc., etc. Prospective jurors will also offer their reasons for being unable or unwilling to serve, including work demands, child car, pre-planned vacations, medical issues, etc. A hundred people or more might be assigned to a panel for one trial, from which 12 will be selected if neither side can find a reason to reject them and they can't talk their way out of it. I personally have gotten out of jury duty by telling the judge during questioning "He looks guilty to me," and I was in a day-long series of selection panels with a woman who accomplished the same end by telling different judges in different cases that she would never believe anything the police said.

The system you describe is hardly random. It borders on the bizarre. The only people called to jury duty are people who volunteer for it. As you observe yourself, that is strange, self-selected subset of the population, and it eliminates anyone who can't spare time away from work, who can't arrange child-care, who may fear (justly or not) retribution from the criminal element (the "I won't get involved" phenomenon), and anyone who generally thinks they have better things to do with their time. I wonder if the subset is especially loaded with people who see it as their public duty to lock up bad guys, which would mean that they are likely to lean dramatically in the direction of the prosecution's view of events. Are they really objective triers of fact? Then look at the educational standards. To serve on a first-level jury, someone needs only to have completed the equivalent of junior high? In the U.S., that would be ninth grade. Someone with no more than a junior high education would be entirely unemployable at anything more than unskilled day labor. And these are the people who would be permitted to assess complex scientific testimony about things like DNA collection and psychological state of mind? And there are only six of them? Is that really a broad enough cross-section of knowledge and experience? And two judges sit on the jury telling lay jurors what to do? I am speechless.

At least the educational standards are somewhat higher for appeals-level jurors, which might explain why a large percentage of first-level convictions apparently are overturned. But it means that some sap has sat in prison for years unjustly. It sounds like the most serious flaw here is that lawyers apparently have no basis for dismissing prospective jurors for cause (particularly prior knowledge or opinions about the matter), but it sounds like the whole system guarantees that a trial is tainted from the day it starts.

I would be very interested to know what percentage of the eligible population actually registers to serve on juries, how often any one of them is actually called to jury duty, and how their educational and income levels compare to the eligible population. I also wonder whether jurors are paid more than transportation fees? If jurors see their duty as a kind of part-time job, that creates another distortion. I see your point about lawyers "shaping" juries, but the judge has the authority to limit that. If I were on trial for my life, I would feel more comfortable with any 12 (six isn't enough) people pulled off a city bus during rush hour than jurors selected under a "please pick me," no-challenge system.

 

[LondonJohn]

http://robertcargill.com/2011/10/03...dine-now-that-amanda-knox-has-been-acquitted/

Well in fact the outcome of the appeal trial has little practical relevance to Moore's situation with Pepperdine. The issue was never about whether or not he was right in his assertions: it was about whether he had breached his employment contract by being a public advocate on the case, and, if so, whether Pepperdine had acted lawfully in the way they dismissed him.

The acquittals of Knox and Sollecito provide Moore with vindication of his position, but I wouldn't expect anything to change with regard to the Pepperdine situation. I suspect that Pepperdine realised that they had no just cause in law for the action they took against Moore, and therefore offered a substantial out-of-court settlement - including payment of costs - to Moore in order to prevent the case from going to court (which would have resulted in an even higher total bill for Pepperdine when they lost the case). The fact that Moore and his attorneys agreed to the settlement shows that it was substantial and of a similar amount to that which he could have expected to receive in a court settlement.

The one possible area in which the acquittals might have beneficial effects for Moore is on the issue of future employment. I suspect that had Knox and Sollecito been ultimately convicted for the murder, Moore's reputation would have taken a bash. Now, however, he can justifiably claim to have championed a just cause.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Whetehr you like it or not, the Kerchers have appointed a legal representative. He represents their interests and their will. It's not difficult to grasp. It is a basic principle of civilty.
Any allegation about the work of their representative, is an allegation against them.

The Kerchers never kept this stuff quiet: they examined it in court both during the first and the second trial. In the second trial they discussed before the same series of photos in two hearings. They never changed their mind. They have been fully and completely examined in court even for longer in the first trial. The autopsy discussion has always been a main point in Maresca's arguments.
The only difference is, in the last session, there were journalists allowed to stay in the room who were not allowed to take pictures were allowd to report about it (however, I also saw the session of the day before). This is the only difference.

That's a pretty significant difference don't you think? Why try to defend the indefensible?

 

[curi0us]

Whetehr you like it or not, the Kerchers have appointed a legal representative. He represents their interests and their will. It's not difficult to grasp. It is a basic principle of civilty.
Any allegation about the work of their representative, is an allegation against them.

It is a basic principle of civility that Maresca should represent "their interests and will", but it is a sad reality of this case that he does not.

As an example, if Maresca really had the best interests of the Kerchers at heart why did he object to the knife being opened by independent DNA experts? Prior to the expert review your strong ally The Machine said the opening of the knife could have been a "game over" for Knox and Sollecito:

Text from an article by The Machine at TJMK
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/

4) Two possible game-overs

Re-examination of the knife

In “Darkness Descending” the former Carabinieri General Garofano wrote that the police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there.

The defence teams will regret having asked for the independent review if the new experts do this and they find there a testable quantity of Meredith’s blood.

I don't often agree with The Machine but what he wrote prior to the DNA review was true. Garofano was right to point out that blood could easily have slipped into the crevice between blade and handle and would have remained despite common cleaning. So opening the handle of the supposed murder weapon was a huge mistake in the original investigation. In this regard the prosecution should have seen a potential advantage in the new independent review of the Knife since now they had an opportunity to correct the mistake of not opening the handle previously.

In fact, it was such an obvious thing to do the DNA indepedent experts on their own volition asked the court if they could open the handle to check for blood evidence inside. The defense lawyers were fine with that procedure being done saying words close to, "we only want the truth". But Maresca objected to the knife blade being opened and basically prevented it from happening. You have to ask yourself why?

If Maresca really believed the knife was the murder weapon he would have wanted the blade opened since what Garofano said was true. Even if Maresca only thought there was possibility the knife was the murder weapon he still would have wanted handle opened since just the possibility of finding "game over" evidence should have been enough to make him want the procedure happen.

Instead Maresca blocked it. Why? I can only think of one answer, Maresca already knew for sure the knife wasn't the murder weapon so he also knew there was no chance of finding blood even if the handle was opened. With that knowledge Maresca was trying to prevent the independent DNA experts from doing any and all tests because he already knew they were going to return results favorable to the defense.

So what does Maresca really represent in this? The Kercher's have said they just want the truth and I believe them, but the evidence is clear that Maresca has different interests at heart.

 

[Mary_H]

O.K., to take a cue from the rest of the discussion here: please provide some links to your proof. See if you can find one place where the city, county, or state governments or utility companies suggest not flushing urine. (No, sites from unofficial extremist environmental groups don't count.)

There have been, in fact, a number of PSA spots, particularly on radio, advocating for water conservation and offering tips on how to save water...and not flushing the toilet is definitely not one of them. Some of them suggest, as I have mentioned before, techniques like putting bricks or water bottles in the tank to cut down on the amount of water flushed each time, or going to compostable toilets. But leaving urine sitting unflushed in a toilet? Never.

Furthermore, I've known many, many people in this area. I've maybe had one person suggest that approach, and that person was openly an extreme pro-environmentalist who probably deposited their feces in the compost pile. Otherwise...no one. And, of all the people I've known in twenty-eight years, not a single one of their houses or apartments have ever had unflushed toilets.

Granted, I've found plenty of unflushed (of both kinds) public toilet stalls, but no more so than in other places I've lived, such as southern California or the northeast -- and those are clearly more a matter of rudeness and inconsideration than any sort of environmental consciousness.

I don't think Grinder was claiming the policy is official in any way. It's a cultural agreement. Enter the phrase "if it's yellow let it mellow" in Google and you'll find over 30,000 references, which I think suggests it's not that extreme.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't think that law prescribes "1 in millions" certainty for evidence.
If you have a DNA evidence that restricts the possible perpetrators to one 100th of the population than it is still a good evidence.

Just think of a shoeprint. We know that tens of thousands of shoes of the same model and size are made and still shoeprints are used in trials as evidence. Rightly.

I understand Bolint, however I was just trying to relay what the issue is here. I think I understood why you appeared to be mocking the argument you were and just wanted to try to explain as it's complicated. I also did a miserable job of it, the peril of attempting to post during football games.

The situation is basically this. The DNA experts found that the Y-haplotype "corresponded" to Raffaele's, thus that's an indication that whatever material that was on the bra-clasp did actually come from Raffaele Sollecito regardless of how it got there. However with at least three male contributors to that y-haplotype, it becomes a bit easier to put together a specific y-haplotype profile, more or less for the same reasons that you have a better chance of winning the lottery if you can play three times as many numbers all at the same time.

Do you have those lotteries where you live where they have you pick five numbers out of 60 or so and then do the drawing? This is kinda like getting to pick fifteen numbers to play one of those, you obviously have a better chance of winning and it's not the same thing as having three separate tickets each of five numbers, your odds are much better with one ticket that allows you fifteen numbers. If you take a look at this chart you might be able to see what I mean, they have one to three alleles at every loci on the y-haplotype. That means that there's at least three people contributing to it, and some of them might be partial contributors or that they share those alleles, kind of like them all sharing the same number, not uncommon in populations with a shared genetic heritage. There might even be more than three contributors who share all the numbers with the other three.

So even if one can put together 17 alleles that correspond exactly to Raffaele's y-haplotype, it is possible that it didn't actually come from Raffaele but is a complication of shared alleles, kinda like if they allowed you to buy three separate lottery tickets and use only the numbers from each that you needed. Now one can read the electropherograms and see that one set seems to be dominant over the other two, and those generally correspond to the ones for Raffaele's haplotype, suggesting that they all came from the same person and that would be one with Raffaele's haplotype. However that's not an absolute, only one number needs to be off, and with this level DNA sometimes it can be highly variable, thus at one or more loci perhaps the one contributor who's alleles seem to be dominant showed up smaller and another of the ones that is generally smaller was higher for that loci.

So even though the y-haplotype 'corresponds' to Raffaele's it might not actually have come from someone with Raffaele's y-haplotype! Perhaps C&V went through and determined this, I just don't remember reading this section, perhaps because I missed it due to the fact I read it as it was still incomplete and being translated. As far as I know they just said 'correspond' and I'm uncertain what exactly they meant by that. I would have expected a detailed analysis if they read the y-haplotype electropherogram for this purpose and I don't recall reading it and was kinda disappointed as that's the facet I was actually interested in the most regarding the bra-clasp.

However let's forget that and say that is Raffaele's y-haplotype, I can't help but wonder due to the refusal of Stefanoni to cough up the necessary data if they didn't do the same because they finally got pissed off at the reticence and knew they could flay her alive on everything else. Just to give you an idea of the scope of Stefanoni's malefeasance, she pretended there was only one male contributor to the clasp and the rest was 'stutter' basically, which is demonstrating an incompetence that defies belief, as any clown on the internet like myself can easily find out that's not true. Anyway, even if it is Raffaele's y-haplotype for certain then we're left with what the judge was getting at which is what real scientists say:

Speaking of the Y haplotype, which was also found in specimen 165B, Professor Tagliabracci made no criticism of the reading/interpretation, but emphasised that such analysis could exclude, but not establish, the presence of a given male subject.

The problem is, as Judge Hellmann said, there's no way of knowing with enough confidence just how rare that y-haplotype is at this juncture. Unlike normal DNA profiles where they can use math to determine just how likely it is that someone shares that same profile and they construct them (by 'looking' at parts of the 'string' more likely to be diverse) to be as unique as possible, these y-haplotypes by their very nature cannot be unique like one human's DNA is from another, with the exception of monozygotic (identical) twins.

It's a totally different way of calculating things, do you understand what I'm getting at, and what Professor Tagliabracci meant? It's more like blood type, yet at this juncture there's no way of knowing with confidence what percentage are 'O+' or 'AB-' to make that determination, which is why I posted that database. Due to the very nature of genetics, localized populations tend to share the factors that would go into determining it as well. Also keep in mind that with three male contributors any odds you do come up with are going to be significantly reduced for the same reason in a class of thirty odds are closer to 1:1 that someone shares your birthday rather than ~10:1 as most might naturally figure.

So to use your analogy, at this juncture we don't even know the rarity of each type of shoeprint, there's actually three different shoeprints to try to match increasing the odds, and it may very well be that one of the shoeprints looks like it matches but actually doesn't. It's complicated, and even if it does match, everything else says it's probable that shoeprint doesn't have anything to do with the murder.

So if you see people saying that despite the suspicious circumstances that it might not even be Raffaele's DNA, that's because there's significant reasons to doubt that it is, and I too am utterly mystified they could do such a thing and do it so badly that I have to say that!

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The interrogation after facts sufficient to incriminate the person are already known, is not permitted. But in order to have sufficent facts to incriminate the person, well, sufficient facts have to be already collected and documented.

In other words, you can't interrogate someone once they're incriminated, but you may interrogate them before they are incriminated. Thus, they are not incriminated before the interrogation, but they are incriminated after the interrogation. The interrogation is the means by which they become incriminated. The interrogation transforms the person from witness to suspect.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is extremely significant. In the U.S., getting people to serve on juries is a continuing struggle, and many jurisdictions have tried to make it as painless as possible by establishing "one day, one trial" plans and similar systems. The process generally is that jurisdictions compile lists of prospective jurors from voter rolls, drivers licenses and other public records, and send summons to people selected randomly, usually by computer. They are assigned to appear on a specific date and time, and they are required to complete a questionnaire about themselves and return it to the court. Typically fewer than half, sometimes fewer than a third, of people who receive these summons return the questionnaire. Of those who do, a substantial percentage don't show up on their court day -- and having returned the questionnaire, they can't claim that they never got the summons. In some jurisdictions, the police or sheriff will actually go out looking for jurors who don't show up, arrest them and bring them to court, where they can be held in contempt. In a big city, hundreds of people are called to jury duty every day to ensure that enough will show up for the courts to function. Once at court, jurors are assigned to selection panels for particular cases, and they participate in voir dire questioning, where the judge and lawyers for both sides ask them if they know any party connected to the case, if they have prior knowledge, if they have been victims of crime, if they have opinions about the case, etc., etc. Prospective jurors will also offer their reasons for being unable or unwilling to serve, including work demands, child car, pre-planned vacations, medical issues, etc. A hundred people or more might be assigned to a panel for one trial, from which 12 will be selected if neither side can find a reason to reject them and they can't talk their way out of it. I personally have gotten out of jury duty by telling the judge during questioning "He looks guilty to me," and I was in a day-long series of selection panels with a woman who accomplished the same end by telling different judges in different cases that she would never believe anything the police said.

The system you describe is hardly random. It borders on the bizarre. The only people called to jury duty are people who volunteer for it. As you observe yourself, that is strange, self-selected subset of the population, and it eliminates anyone who can't spare time away from work, who can't arrange child-care, who may fear (justly or not) retribution from the criminal element (the "I won't get involved" phenomenon), and anyone who generally thinks they have better things to do with their time. I wonder if the subset is especially loaded with people who see it as their public duty to lock up bad guys, which would mean that they are likely to lean dramatically in the direction of the prosecution's view of events. Are they really objective triers of fact? Then look at the educational standards. To serve on a first-level jury, someone needs only to have completed the equivalent of junior high? In the U.S., that would be ninth grade. Someone with no more than a junior high education would be entirely unemployable at anything more than unskilled day labor. And these are the people who would be permitted to assess complex scientific testimony about things like DNA collection and psychological state of mind? And there are only six of them? Is that really a broad enough cross-section of knowledge and experience? And two judges sit on the jury telling lay jurors what to do? I am speechless.

At least the educational standards are somewhat higher for appeals-level jurors, which might explain why a large percentage of first-level convictions apparently are overturned. But it means that some sap has sat in prison for years unjustly. It sounds like the most serious flaw here is that lawyers apparently have no basis for dismissing prospective jurors for cause (particularly prior knowledge or opinions about the matter), but it sounds like the whole system guarantees that a trial is tainted from the day it starts.

I would be very interested to know what percentage of the eligible population actually registers to serve on juries, how often any one of them is actually called to jury duty, and how their educational and income levels compare to the eligible population. I also wonder whether jurors are paid more than transporation fees? If jurors see their duty as a kind of part-time job, that creates another distortion. I see your point about lawyers "shaping" juries, but the judge has the authority to limit that. If I were on trial for my life, I would feel more comfortable with any 12 (six isn't enough) people pulled off a city bus during rush hour than jurors selected under a "please pick me," no-challenge system.

I agree with everything you've written here. And I too would like to see statistics on such things as the proportion of the eligible population who elect to place themselves on the register of popular judges (although I've already discovered that Italians aren't that hot on providing general statistical information related to criminal justice proceedings).

But I would temper things by reiterating something that I've written about before: I think that the presence of the two professional judges on the judicial panel is highly likely to render the role of the popular judges to little more than democratic decoration. I strongly suggest that the two professional judges not only lead the deliberations, but that they also dictate the verdict. I think that the six popular judges (i.e. lay jurors) are very likely to defer to the opinions of the two judges, for two reasons: firstly, there is an underlying psychological tendency to have a natural deference to authority figures, and that tendency can only be magnified when you add in the pomp, the majesty, and the arcane rituals and language of a court trial. But secondly, it's entirely reasonable for the lay jurors to assume that the professional judges are in a better position to reach a correct verdict than they themselves are: the professional judges are extensively trained in the law, they usually have decades of experience of criminal trials, and they by definition have proven good judgement. Therefore, if a professional judge argues for a particular verdict, it's rational for a lay juror to think that the judge has good grounds for such a verdict - regardless of whether or not the lay juror previously agreed with the judge's opinion. As I've said before (but it seems impossible to check or verify), I strongly suspect that most verdicts in the 2-judges-plus-six-lay-jurors trials are unanimous, and that it's exceedingly rare for the lay jurors to "gang up" to outvote the professional judges.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well in fact the outcome of the appeal trial has little practical relevance to Moore's situation with Pepperdine. The issue was never about whether or not he was right in his assertions: it was about whether he had breached his employment contract by being a public advocate on the case, and, if so, whether Pepperdine had acted lawfully in the way they dismissed him.

The acquittals of Knox and Sollecito provide Moore with vindication of his position, but I wouldn't expect anything to change with regard to the Pepperdine situation. I suspect that Pepperdine realised that they had no just cause in law for the action they took against Moore, and therefore offered a substantial out-of-court settlement - including payment of costs - to Moore in order to prevent the case from going to court (which would have resulted in an even higher total bill for Pepperdine when they lost the case). The fact that Moore and his attorneys agreed to the settlement shows that it was substantial and of a similar amount to that which he could have expected to receive in a court settlement.

The one possible area in which the acquittals might have beneficial effects for Moore is on the issue of future employment. I suspect that had Knox and Sollecito been ultimately convicted for the murder, Moore's reputation would have taken a bash. Now, however, he can justifiably claim to have championed a just cause.

I think you are right in all you assert here. Just trying to repost for Injustice in Perugia.