Well, let’s say: the most usual way things go, is that there are two convictions. I repeat that I don’t have stats, but I feel the wide majority of murder trials (maybe like 70% or so) are simply a sequence of convictions with no significant change. In fact only about 15% of verdicts are significantly reversed in the merits (like innocent to guilty or vice versa).
So it is the reversal that itself is rather unusual. This is because most cases are simple and usually evidence is obvious. However, as we consider only difficult or complicate cases, stats seem to change dramatically.
That was my guess as well from what I came across, that most trials were three-and-out, but there was a number of cases in which that was not the case, enough to be considered out of the ordinary.
Incidentally, does the above include 'fast track' cases or well, or just the three stage trials? I understand that 'fast track' can also yield an acquittal, but that's even rarer than normal, right? Would it be considered extraordinary, (in murder cases) or does it happen sometimes when the prosecution has a really weak case and the defendant just wants to get it over with?
I try to recall by memory a list of some high-profile cases:
The Nicholas Green murder: Nicholas Green was a child, and a US citizen; his alleged killers were acquitted on first instance, then convicted on appeal (no physical evidence, only mafia witnesses).
The DAMS murder: a lover’s murder in Bologna, acquitted in the first instance, convicted in the appeal.
The Cogne murder: this was probably the highest profile case in Italy, short track trial, convicted in first instance, acquitted in appeal, then acquittal reversed at the supreme court, then convicted on a new appeal, then finally conviction confirmed at the supreme court.
Pacciani and the Monster of Florence: not a fast track murder, the three main suspects were convicted in first instance, then acquitted on appeal; then supreme court reversed (annulled) the verdicts, and on the new appeal the suspects were convicted (meanwhile Pacciani had died).
Giulio Andreotti: this was an unusual case, probably related to the very high profile of the defendant; not a fast track trial, he was acquitted of murder on first instance then convicted on appeal, but the conviction reversed by the supreme court with a definitive acquittal (but very powerful politicians may have friends at the supreme court).
So a handful of cases in those years that you can recall, perhaps not representative. I wonder just how much the media interest in the case perhaps impacts decisions made by the prosecutors and judges, or if the media naturally follows the cases in which unusual things happen? I see that twice the Supreme Court of Cassation
has struck down an acquittal, though it doesn't look like it was for a good cause. Even Mignini thinks they got the wrong guys in the Monster of Florence cases, doesn't he?
Incidentally, do you know what grounds the Court of Cassation used to scuttle the convictions?
What does 'short track' mean in the Cogne case? At first I figured it was just a synonym for 'fast track' but the sequence of events doesn't match.
The cases I recall seem to have a slight prevalence of conviction on appeal after first instance acquittal, but not prevalent to the point of considering the reverse order as an exception.
Here's something else also interesting, this is Pictor's chart that he uploaded to PMF that Rose reposted recently. What does all of this mean for
sure? I can puzzle some of it out, and I realize it's only for the Bologna Appeals court from 2001 to 2003 and it appears some of the data is only for six month periods, but I'm curious as to some of the results and what they might
mean.
For example, just going by 'figura 15' for the category of 'violenza,' which I take to mean violent crime, it appears for 2001 and the first half of 2002 that 55.35% were modified. Would that be the definition applied to Amanda's case as the sentence was reduced to three years?
What they can do is only the first option, they can only remand to a new trial. They cannot actually convict without another trial. Because a conviction on the nullity of appeal would trigger the right to a second appeal. This is about the murder case, on which the prosecution has appealed. But about the calunnia, the defence has to appeal, thus this depends on if the defense decides to appeal the conviction. Because if the defence doesn’t appeal the conviction for calunnia, the latter will become automatically definitive within 45 days after the issue of the motivations report. I think the defense of Knox will likely submit an appeal for the calunnia conviction, but they haven't expressed this intent by now.
That's what I thought, do you foresee the possibility of the
calunnia charge being struck down, and what is the status of the other two
calunnia charges brought by police and the case against the Sollecitos? Those are tough to get info on!
