Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Osterwelle]

Well, so I don't see a mention about a status of "factual suspect", as by your claim. Where is it?

According to the cable she was "detained for interrogation" on November 5, was she not?

-
Osterwelle

 

[Freddy]

.... arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner ...

Well, so I don't see a mention about a status of "factual suspect", as by your claim. Where is it?

You are quite correct. The treaty does not require that she be a "factual suspect" in order for its protections to be triggered. Knox was not free to leave (the police have admitted that someone was tasked with making sure she didn't leave). That is the definition of being detained. So she was "detained in any other manner," triggering the obligation to inform her of her right to speak to the American Consulate and to honor any request to exercise that right. The treaty is quite clear: if she is detained in any manner and the police are aware she is a foreign national, she must be informed of her right to speak to the consulate.

 

[Freddy]

If it's this, then I'm not surprised, as it's quite long! I got as far as the 'double jeopardy' clause and then skim-read the rest; hopefully I read the relevant bits...

I already knew that the U.S. wouldn't extradite someone if they were being re-tried for a crime they'd already been convicted or acquitted of, which is what the treaty says. But as I understand it, in Italy no one is finally convicted or acquitted until the Supreme Court ruling (the presumption of innocence applies till then), and the different stages are all part of the same process. I would think it's the Supreme Court ruling which is recognized by the U.S. as a conviction or an acquittal. But I'd be interested to know how this has worked in previous cases.

On a question of due process, American courts look at the substance, not the formalities. In addition, American courts evaluate foreign court judgments against Americans according to American standards of due process (or substantial equivalence thereto). An acquittal by a jury is game over in the US: there are no appeals of jury acquittals, and this is considered a fundamental due process right of a defendant. To the extent Italian law differs on this point, an American court will not honor it.

 

[CDHost]

Do you have an example of a similar case where the U.S. has refused to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy?

There are very few cases where Italy has sought extradition from the US. I do agree with you though, that the US is not going to refuse extradition on the grounds of double jeopardy. The "double jeopardy" in the Knox case is structural to the Italian system, we shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty if we objected to their entire structure.

I think what would happen is the US federal government would forward it to the Washington state system where she has lots of supporters. And there it would just keep having paperwork problems

• extraditions under section 23/41.d need to have 3/4 inch margins. This document has a 7/8th inch margin so its being returned to the Italian court clerk for correction
• There is no Amanda Maria Knox. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.
• The address listed for this Amanda Marie Knox is not a postoffice valid, address. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.

etc.... No one ever refuses to extradite her... it just appears that Italy is having trouble getting their documents in order.

 

[Freddy]

There are very few cases where Italy has sought extradition from the US. I do agree with you though, that the US is not going to refuse extradition on the grounds of double jeopardy. The "double jeopardy" in the Knox case is structural to the Italian system, we shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty if we objected to their entire structure.

I disagree. On questions of due process, American courts ignore formalities and focus exclusively on substance. Also, an American court will consider whether the foreign proceeding for which extradition is sought respects the basic due process rights of the accused.

In this case, Knox was acquitted by a jury. An acquittal by a jury cannot be appealed in America, because to allow that would violate what American courts (correctly) regard as a fundamental right of a criminal defendant. An American court will not extradite an American to face a proceeding the very conducting of which constitutes a violation of what is considered, in America, to be a fundamental right. We have a treaty because we are perfectly willing to extradite an American accused of committing a crime in Italy upon a showing of probable cause.

EDIT: I don't think that this is completely open-and-shut, and the view you're expressing is not unreasonable. I don't know of any precedent on point, but my sense is that an American court would consider a not-guilty verdict by a jury to be a final decision. In American law, "final" does not mean "after all appeals are exhausted." It just means that a verdict was reached that disposes of all the material issues in the cae. An American court would almost certainly say that this sense of "final" is what Congress was agreeing to in ratifying the treaty and/or passing legislation to give it effect. I don't think the fact that Italian law has different formalities would be considered important, let alone dispositive.

 

[Grinder]

On what day was he interviewed? And what did he say?

I don't have the date but it was within a week or two of the murder. You don't doubt that the police would have asked him if he saw anything, after all, Commodi made a point that it made sense that he had testified in two other trials because as a street person "he saw much."

He said he saw nothing unusual.

Paid by a local paper for testifying the false in a murder trial?
Do you feel confortable as you imagine all these random people willing to pay money to commit crimes for no gain, and so many people willing risk, to take part in criminal conspiracies for no reason, just for the sake of it?

No, paid for an interview. Didn't a paper or TV station interview him before he went to the police. The same with Nara.

Ok, but many witnsses are.

Heroin has significant impact on memory if used for a long period of time. Look it up.

No, just a moment. For "drug use", we are not talking of a person high on drugs, and not "drugs" in general; this is a person addicted to a drug (not high on a drug), not to any drug but to heroin.
Heroin use is not something healthy in terms of quality of life and is a dangerous substance (due to dosage and power on central systems of breath control), it but does not cause people to be unable to remember correctly and to be a witness. Opioids can have effects on consiousness for a while if the dose is heavvy, but do not have hallucinogenic effects nor effects on memory (while instead alcohol has) and cannot produce any false memories.

Moreover, you cannot dismiss the simple datum that Curatolo appears sure and not confused, he never changes his acount and appears to not have an interest nor a moral inclination for inventing a false story. These are points that you have to consider as you actually hear the voice of a person giving his testimony and answering questions. You cannot just cling to the prejudice that all heroin users are all unreliable: if this were valid as a universal rule, the testimony of a prostitute (or anyone else) who claims to be victim of a rape or robbery should be always dismissed on the ground that possibly the person had a drug use. Which is obviously an absurd position, testimonies of people cannot be dismissed entirely in all cases just because they use drugs.

Funny. He was high on heroin. He had a interest to stay out of jail for heroin dealing. He knew he had been cited for it years before. No one denies he was a good professional witness - this was his third trial!!!

 

[katy_did]

There are very few cases where Italy has sought extradition from the US. I do agree with you though, that the US is not going to refuse extradition on the grounds of double jeopardy. The "double jeopardy" in the Knox case is structural to the Italian system, we shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty if we objected to their entire structure.

I think what would happen is the US federal government would forward it to the Washington state system where she has lots of supporters. And there it would just keep having paperwork problems

• extraditions under section 23/41.d need to have 3/4 inch margins. This document has a 7/8th inch margin so its being returned to the Italian court clerk for correction
• There is no Amanda Maria Knox. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.
• The address listed for this Amanda Marie Knox is not a postoffice valid, address. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.

etc.... No one ever refuses to extradite her... it just appears that Italy is having trouble getting their documents in order.

Yes, these are my thoughts too - I think refusing to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy would have consequences beyond this specific case, and that the U.S. would be very unlikely to do it for that reason. As you say, this form of 'double jeopardy' is integral to the Italian system, and to object on those grounds would be to reject the Italian legal process; there may as well be no extradition treaty. Much more likely it would be rejected on the paperwork grounds you suggest ("There is no Amanda Maria Knox" ).

 

[Kaosium]

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

This is new to me, who testified there were disco buses running on All Saint's Day? There was a bunch of disco owners who testified in the appeal that there weren't disco buses because they weren't open, did you get that mixed up?

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

If Curatolo's testimony is true they have an alibi for the murder! He said he saw them standing there until 11:30 at the earliest, Meredith ate at sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 and had nothing in her duodenum, it is thus basically impossible she was not dead by then, 10:00 is a stretch to begin with, odds are she was stabbed ~9:00 PM. Does LJ have to come back and do one of his cool charts showing the probabilities off the Gaussian curve again?

About further evidence about the time of death, Nara and Antonella both heared a woman's scream (not an argument and a yelling) located after 22.30.

Then they were wrong about the time or the scream was unrelated.

The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

No, what this means is that 10:13 call was highly likely to have been received away from the cottage but not in its final resting place just yet. Rudy might not have decided to throw the cell phones just then, and he was out and about after the murder.

The rest of the scientific argument is easilly dismissed both on the ground of its intrinsic uncertainity, and on uncertainity of its implications: the defendants simply have no alibi after 8:40.

The innocents ( ) have an electronic alibi until 9:26 at the earliest, and you have not convinced me that the screensaver and keyboard light data was not considered. I went looking for it, and again only found reference to a denial of a new technical re-evaluation, much like what was requested for the bra-clasp and knife. You will recall at the outset of the appeal they also 'denied' a review of the ToD, however the prosecution still adjusted their ToD to 10:00 PM, that is the scientifically literate faction who might in the future be trying cases in Italian Courts, something Mignini won't have to worry about in short order. My guess is it was decided by Hellmann there was enough information already contained in Massei to adjust the ToD to 10:00 at the latest, I recall the forensic pathologist on this board came to the same conclusion just by reading it as well on the Conspiracy thread.

Perhaps you are correct, but could you post the relevant quote from Hellmann that says he specifically denied the addendum to the appeal documents? You said something about it being 'too late' which doesn't strike me as in the interests of justice or fairness regardless, two lives were on the line, this isn't a game with deadlines. If they had technical data capable of exonerating their clients, merely saying it was 'too late' when it was filed before the appeal began anyway, which would run for almost an entire year afterward, is inexcusable.

 

[smkovalinksy]

there are very few cases where italy has sought extradition from the us. I do agree with you though, that the us is not going to refuse extradition on the grounds of double jeopardy. The "double jeopardy" in the knox case is structural to the italian system, we shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty if we objected to their entire structure.

I think what would happen is the us federal government would forward it to the washington state system where she has lots of supporters. And there it would just keep having paperwork problems

• extraditions under section 23/41.d need to have 3/4 inch margins. This document has a 7/8th inch margin so its being returned to the italian court clerk for correction
• there is no amanda maria knox. Returned to the italian court for clarification.
• the address listed for this amanda marie knox is not a postoffice valid, address. Returned to the italian court for clarification.

etc.... No one ever refuses to extradite her... It just appears that italy is having trouble getting their documents in order.

 

[AmyStrange]

Justices examine eyewitness identification

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/justi...entification/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

 

[CDHost]

I disagree. On questions of due process, American courts ignore formalities and focus exclusively on substance. Also, an American court will consider whether the foreign proceeding for which extradition is sought respects the basic due process rights of the accused.

Remember this is a treaty, which has powers over and above those of black letter law. What would be their grounds, the American court concludes that the Italian court's ruling was final despite the fact that the Italians disagree and despite the fact that the United States Senate by a 2/3rds majority held the Italian system to be so fully valid that US agrees in advance to waive right of review?

In this case, Knox was acquitted by a jury.

No she wasn't. She was acquitted by an appeals court with some civilian judges. Italy doesn't have juries in an British/American sense.

An acquittal by a jury cannot be appealed in America, because to allow that would violate what American courts (correctly) regard as a fundamental right of a criminal defendant.

Absolutely. And by a 2/3rds majority....

 

[Diocletus]

Yep, that's for sure. Either they didn't inform Amanda about her rights so she didn't request them to contact the embassy or she did do that and they just didn't care and sent the memo later.

In any case, I'm not sure that the embassy would've been much of a help there anyway. They're not bound to aid, at least not by the Vienna Convention. Look how "fast" the "ConOff" went to the prison .

-
Osterwelle

How much they would have been of help does not cure the violation. What is interesting is that on the day the Italian cops informed the embassy, the Italian authorities got possession of a document stating that the cops had abused the prisoner. I would certainly hope that if this had been brought to the embassy's attention, it would have been cause for grave concern. But it wasn't brought to the embassy's attention, which to me is a tacit admission that the cops did abuse the prisoner.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely. And by a 2/3rds majority....

I don't believe that a treaty obligation can abrogate the due process rights of a US citizen.

 

[CDHost]

I don't believe that a treaty obligation can abrogate the due process rights of a US citizen.

They can't. However, the ruling has already been made by the US Senate that the Italian system does not abrogate the due process rights.

It is a simple modus tollens syllogism

1) If Italy didn't offer due process we wouldn't sign an extradition treaty.
2) We signed an extradition treaty.
C) The Italian system offers due process.

IANAL but I think if we had an extradition treaty with say North Korea the existence of the treaty would in effect create a huge burdon. In the case of Italy where there is unquestionably an attempt at creating due process, even if that differs in forum from the USA.... Essentially since these issues are structural you would need to prove a lot about the Senate's process.

I think there are serious problems with the Italian system. I can why we would want to discuss not having an extradition treaty with Italy. I certainly would like to strengthen the Vienna protections about foreigns tried abroad, though the US is a serious violator of the protections that exist today. But this argument that Italy doesn't offer due process is far too much of a stretch.

 

[Freddy]

Remember this is a treaty, which has powers over and above those of black letter law. What would be their grounds, the American court concludes that the Italian court's ruling was final despite the fact that the Italians disagree and despite the fact that the United States Senate by a 2/3rds majority held the Italian system to be so fully valid that US agrees in advance to waive right of review?

Actually, upon reflection I think the word whose meaning matters here is "acquittal." My position is that the treaty is ambiguous for purposes of this hypothetical dispute, and that therefore it would be appropriate to consider legislative intent in interpreting it. I don't think it is at all plausible that the Senate understood itself to be agreeing to extradite US citizens to face trial for crimes of which they have already been found "not guilty" following a full trial. There is no way even a single Senator had Italy's quirky and counter-intuitive (to American sensibilities) definition in mind, and the treaty does not say whose definition of acquittal prevails in a weird situation like this. There is plenty of wiggle room for the US to refuse extradition.

No she wasn't. She was acquitted by an appeals court with some civilian judges. Italy doesn't have juries in an British/American sense.

Absolutely. And by a 2/3rds majority....

True, but this is the Italian analogue of a jury and would be considered such. She was found not guilty after a full trial.

 

[Freddy]

They can't. However, the ruling has already been made by the US Senate that the Italian system does not abrogate the due process rights.

The Senate does not make rulings on what the Constitution permits, and it lacks the authority to override the Constitution. If it were challenged, the courts would decide whether extradition in this case would violate the Constitutional rights of the accused. If they find that it would, then no extradition.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

There are very few cases where Italy has sought extradition from the US. I do agree with you though, that the US is not going to refuse extradition on the grounds of double jeopardy. The "double jeopardy" in the Knox case is structural to the Italian system, we shouldn't have signed an extradition treaty if we objected to their entire structure.

I think what would happen is the US federal government would forward it to the Washington state system where she has lots of supporters. And there it would just keep having paperwork problems

• extraditions under section 23/41.d need to have 3/4 inch margins. This document has a 7/8th inch margin so its being returned to the Italian court clerk for correction
• There is no Amanda Maria Knox. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.
• The address listed for this Amanda Marie Knox is not a postoffice valid, address. Returned to the Italian court for clarification.

etc.... No one ever refuses to extradite her... it just appears that Italy is having trouble getting their documents in order.

I find this unlikely. I think that it would be more straightforward than that. Extradition would be denied, and the reasons would be given. I don't think anyone would waste their time playing around with it that way. The response would be unequivocal and leave no doubt in anyones mind as to what was happening.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Yes, these are my thoughts too - I think refusing to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy would have consequences beyond this specific case, and that the U.S. would be very unlikely to do it for that reason. As you say, this form of 'double jeopardy' is integral to the Italian system, and to object on those grounds would be to reject the Italian legal process; there may as well be no extradition treaty. Much more likely it would be rejected on the paperwork grounds you suggest ("There is no Amanda Maria Knox" ).

I will stick with my post. I think my track record regarding the facts has been pretty good on this board.

 

[Kaosium]

I can't believe the first part of your post is true, Bruce (that the U.S. wouldn't extradite due to 'double jeopardy') because it would mean the U.S. doesn't recognize Italy's legal system. In Italy, of course, people are presumed to be innocent until the final verdict, meaning that this verdict is equivalent to the first verdict in a U.S. case. To me it seems very unlikely the U.S. doesn't formally recognize this.

The United States recognizes Italy's legal system, however it does not surrender Amanda Knox's rights to them wholesale, nor for that matter Raffaele Sollecito's were he to choose to come to America. Look at it this way, many countries consider it within their rights to deny extradition to the United States if the defendant would face the death penalty, a violation of their human rights that some states in the US don't agree with. The United States considers double-jeopardy a violation of their human rights, and the ECHR agrees:

3.5.4. Criminal law matters

In addition to those matters relating to law enforcement in 3.5.3., the ECHR relates to criminal law matters across a variety of rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right not to be detained arbitrarily, the prohibition on retroactive punishment and double jeopardy, the right to life and the right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Do you have an example of a similar case where the U.S. has refused to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy?

Why would anyone ask if they knew the answer would be 'no?'

This might have been what Comodi was referring to when she said there was no 'extradition agreement between Italy and the US.' There simply isn't in a case like this.

Agreed, it's purely academic (apart from anything else, I calculate there's a 99.56% chance the Supreme Court will uphold the not guilty verdicts anyway). All the same, I'd be really surprised if the U.S. doesn't recognize the different stages of the Italian legal process.

I can see that the lawyers might contest any extradition attempt on the grounds of double jeopardy, but I imagine that would be just the legal argument they'd put forward rather than a rule already set in stone.

Anyway, yes, academic!

It recognizes the stages, but also the dangers inherent. The ECHR currently makes an allowance for a prosecution appeal in the Trial of the First Instance, such as happened to the Moldavian woman who was Amanda's roommate and convicted after being acquitted initially in the Trial of the First instance, but convicted by the Trial of the Second Instance. This would be an entirely different situation, as the Supreme Court is not a finder of fact, but merely of law, it could only require that the case be remanded to the lower courts for yet another trial, which would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause.

Otherwise what is to stop the prosecution from admitting to procedural 'mistakes' on its part to force another trial regardless of the outcome of the Trial of the Second Instance?

I don't doubt you're right that she'll never be extradited, even if the SC overturns the verdict (which it won't). I just don't think you're right on the double jeopardy thing, because it makes no sense. As Rolfe says, a more likely argument against extradition would be the weakness of the case (especially post-C&V report) rather than "we won't extradite because we don't recognize your country's legal process".

They recognize it, but in addition to the above a part of the extradition treaty is that the offense must be considered such in both countries, thus they don't inherently incorporate all the laws of the country asking for extradition either. There is a principle that goes beyond merely the dignity of the legal system in question, that is the rights of the accused.

If it's this, then I'm not surprised, as it's quite long! I got as far as the 'double jeopardy' clause and then skim-read the rest; hopefully I read the relevant bits...

I already knew that the U.S. wouldn't extradite someone if they were being re-tried for a crime they'd already been convicted or acquitted of, which is what the treaty says. But as I understand it, in Italy no one is finally convicted or acquitted until the Supreme Court ruling (the presumption of innocence applies till then), and the different stages are all part of the same process. I would think it's the Supreme Court ruling which is recognized by the U.S. as a conviction or an acquittal. But I'd be interested to know how this has worked in previous cases.

I disagree. On questions of due process, American courts ignore formalities and focus exclusively on substance. Also, an American court will consider whether the foreign proceeding for which extradition is sought respects the basic due process rights of the accused.

In this case, Knox was acquitted by a jury. An acquittal by a jury cannot be appealed in America, because to allow that would violate what American courts (correctly) regard as a fundamental right of a criminal defendant. An American court will not extradite an American to face a proceeding the very conducting of which constitutes a violation of what is considered, in America, to be a fundamental right. We have a treaty because we are perfectly willing to extradite an American accused of committing a crime in Italy upon a showing of probable cause.

What he said.

Here is a The Supreme Court, through successive ruling has further refined the boundaries of non-appeallable acquittals. Under current case law, the prohibition of appealing acquittals applies also to implied acquittals¹⁰; to acquittals when a judge is the fact-trier¹¹; or when a judge acquits in face of a deadlocked jury¹²; and even to acquittals granted on the basis of an error of law¹³. On the contrary, the government can still obtain a retrial after an hung jury¹⁴, and after an acquittal obtained at the appellate level¹⁵ unless it is based on insufficient evidence¹⁶. Moreover the double jeopardy does not prevent appeals of pre-trial dismissals¹⁷, mid-trial acquittals if early termination is obtained on ground unrelated to his guilt or innocence¹⁸ or post-trial discharges following conviction by the trier of fact, if the new verdict van be reinstated without exposing the defendant to a second trial before a second trier¹⁹.

If you look at the exceptions you can see none of them would apply to this case. There was no hung jury, the Trial of the Second Instance isn't exactly an appellate level court, (it fits the 'trier of fact' in the definition above) and went even beyond 'insufficient evidence.' It was not a pre-trial dismissal, it was not an early termination based upon grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence, and of course they would want to expose Amanda (and potentially Raffaele) to second trial before a third 'trier of fact.'

¹⁰ Green v. United States, 355 US 184, 190-191 (1957). The defendant in Green was convicted in appeal with a greater charge of first degree murder compared to the first trial where he was convicted of second
degree murder. The Supreme Court concluded that although the first jury did not explicitly acknowledge an acquittal for the charge of murder of first degree, the jury conviction of the lesser offence still constituted an implied acquittal of the greater charge and thus ruled out a retrial for the higher charge.
¹¹ United States v. Morrison, 429 US 1, 3 (1976). The prohibition of appealing acquittals extends also to bench trials, where a judge rather then a jury is the fact-finder.

¹² United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 US 564 (1977). An acquittal granted in face of a deadlocked jury cannot be appealed if it implies a second prosecution and thus the government appeal was barred.

¹³ In Sanabria v. United States, 437 US 54 (1978) the judge acquitted the defendant before a final verdict was rendered and blatantly misinterpreting the relevant statute. The government appealed and the court granted a new trial. The Supreme Court eventually reversed arguing that “there is no exception permitting retrial once the defendant has been acquitted, no matter how “egregiously erroneous” ...the legal ruling leading to that judgment might be.” Sanabria 437 US 75.

¹⁴ See Richardson v. United States, 104 S. CT. 2081 (1984).
¹⁵ See United States v. Ball 163 US 662, 672 (1896).
¹⁶ See Burks v. United States, 437 US 1 (1978).
¹⁷ See Serfass v. United States, 420 US 377 (1975).
¹⁸ See United States v. Scott, 437 US 82 (1978).
¹⁹ See United States v. Wilson 420 US 332 (1975).

Yes, these are my thoughts too - I think refusing to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy would have consequences beyond this specific case, and that the U.S. would be very unlikely to do it for that reason. As you say, this form of 'double jeopardy' is integral to the Italian system, and to object on those grounds would be to reject the Italian legal process; there may as well be no extradition treaty. Much more likely it would be rejected on the paperwork grounds you suggest ("There is no Amanda Maria Knox" ).

LOL! Or 'Xnox' for that matter!

Personally I don't think Italy would even ask and if they did, they'd mumble it. What grounds would they have? 'We held her for four years, we gave her a trial of the First Instance that was dubious in a number of ways, she was completely exonerated on the murder charge but now we think we made a technical mistake by letting her go just yet and think we should be able to play with her life some more?' We want an entirely new trial!

That's the very thing that double jeopardy was designed to prevent, they don't get to keep trying people until they get the result they want, especially if the demand is predicated on a technicality. I've come across indications that simply allowing the prosecution appeal after a trial of the first instance is on the way out in the EU, remanding the whole thing for an entirely new and third trial is beyond the pale. Amanda has rights too!

 

[Kaosium]

They can't. However, the ruling has already been made by the US Senate that the Italian system does not abrogate the due process rights.

It is a simple modus tollens syllogism

1) If Italy didn't offer due process we wouldn't sign an extradition treaty.
2) We signed an extradition treaty.
C) The Italian system offers due process.

IANAL but I think if we had an extradition treaty with say North Korea the existence of the treaty would in effect create a huge burdon. In the case of Italy where there is unquestionably an attempt at creating due process, even if that differs in forum from the USA.... Essentially since these issues are structural you would need to prove a lot about the Senate's process.

I think there are serious problems with the Italian system. I can why we would want to discuss not having an extradition treaty with Italy. I certainly would like to strengthen the Vienna protections about foreigns tried abroad, though the US is a serious violator of the protections that exist today. But this argument that Italy doesn't offer due process is far too much of a stretch.

However an extradition would not be a case of her being under jurisdiction of Italian law, it would be whether we should subject her to Italian law. Extradition treaties are not an imposition of another country's law on US citizens, and if you've read the Bill of Rights recently you might note that the Fifth Amendment says something about this. We consider double jeopardy to be a denial of a fundamental human right, as we define it, not they, and it would take quite a bit more than a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to bypass that, something about 3/4s of the state legislatures too!

A trial of the second instance is not an 'appellate court.' That's just shorthand translation, as a matter of fact it's much more like the real trial in the US system. The first two go together, like the grand jury and a real trial, or the two halves of a football game. One means nothing without the other, though for laughers (like this should have been) the game can be suspended at halftime if the prosecution doesn't want to keep playing.

So...what do you think about those countries which refuse to extradite to the US on the basis of the accused having to face the death penalty if returned to trial in certain states? That's the level that double-jeopardy is on in the US, a fundamental human right that Italy may not respect, though in reality I'd like to see how many times this has ever happened, that the Italian Supreme Court struck down an acquittal and remanded a murder case to another trial, frankly I think this is all theoretical personally.