Judge Massei's report on the sentencing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito can be read online, printed out, or downloaded here

Category: The appeals

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Explaining How The Italian Appeals Process Actually Works And What We May Expect Coming Up

Posted by Commissario Montalbano



[Vincenzo Carbone, Prime President of Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, addressing Italian Supreme Court]

This is a repeat of my post on how appeals work in Italy, posted last December in the context of the guilty verdict for AK and RS and the outcome of Guede’s first appeal. 

Please also consider this post on the really independent judiciary which explains why political pressure, especially from outside Italy, is not exactly a certain winner.

The appeal process in the Italian judicial system is disciplined by art. 593 et seq. of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure (CPP).

Both the defendant and the prosecution have the right to appeal a sentence, according to the principle of parity of the two parties in a judicial process. In 2006 a law passed by the Berlusconi government (known as “Pecorella Law”, from the name of his sponsor), intended to prohibit the right of appeal of the prosecutor, similarly to what happens in the US, however the Italian Constitutional Court struck down that law as unconstitutional since it is in violation of the parity of the two parties in the process, as explained above. As a result the CPP has been modified to reflect its original version.

It is to be noted however, that if only the defendant requests an appeal (and not the prosecution), then the appeal court can only confirm or decrease the sentence of the first trial, but not increase it.

Since Mignini has already said that they won’t appeal the case, Amanda and Raffaele are likely to see their jail sentence decreased by a few years, or at most confirmed, but not increased. Art. 575 of the Italian Penal Code however prescribes a minimum of 21 years for voluntary homicide.

The principle of “double jeopardy”, which is also guaranteed by Italian law and by the law of all members of the European Union as condition of membership, does not apply to the appeal trial, as such trial is interpreted as being a mere continuation of the same first trial. The double jeopardy principle will therefore apply only after the sentence is definitive, i.e. after the Supreme Court of Cassation decision. In other words if Amanda and Raffaele are found not guilty after all the appeals are exhausted, the Italian state will not be able to try them again in the future.

This characteristic is not unique to Italy, most European countries, in fact, apply the double jeopardy only after all appeals have exhausted, among these Germany and France, which also permit the appeal by the prosecution.

The competence of the appeal process is disciplined by art 594 of the CPP. Such article establishes that the Appeal Court of Assizes has jurisdiction over the sentences rendered by the Court of Assizes. The Court of Assizes is the court in Italy which tries serious crimes, that is those crimes for which the penal code provides a maximum punishment of at least 24 years.

In this case the Corte d’Assise d’Appello of Perugia will have jurisdiction over the case. However the defense may request a change of venue, if they can demonstrate just cause.

The terms of the request for appeal are disciplined by art. 595 of the CPP. Such article specifies, among other things, that the party requesting the appeal can do so within 15 days from the day the Sentence is communicated. If such sentence is particularly complex (as this case is) the judge can request that the “Motivazione della Sentenza”, often referred to in TJMK as the Judge’s Report, or be filed with the court within 90 days from the end of the trial. In this circumstance the terms to file an appeal is 45 days, instead of 15.

The Italian constitution requires that all sentences be accompanied by this Report, including appeal sentences. As we’ve seen with Judge Micheli’s Report on Rudy Guede’s trial, the Sentence Motivation Report must explain the entire rationale that the judges utilized to reach the decision. The lack of such report would invalidate the sentence.

Once one or more parties to the trial requests an appeal, within 15 days from the day such Motivation report is communicated, the competent court will then acquire all the documentation regarding the case. The court will then notifies all parties of the beginning of the hearing at least 20 days before the commencement day.

As mentioned above, the appeal process in Italy is a brand new trial where all evidence and testimony is analyzed in the same terms as the first trial. The standards are however higher. The president of the Appeal Court of Assizes is in fact a judge from the Supreme Court of Cassation (the members of the Supreme Court are actually called “Consiglieri”). The requisites for being one of the 6 jurors are also higher. They must be all holding a high school degree (in the first trial the minimum required is only a middle school education).



[Image Above: The Seat of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, in the Hall of Justice in Rome, also known as “Il Palazzaccio” or the Ugly Palace].

The extraordinary broad appeal rights awarded by the Italian system are all part of the 1989 reform, which intended to add even more guarantees to the right of the accused. This has resulted in an incredible increase in pending cases in the overburdened Italian justice system. According to the latest report to Parliament by Justice Minister Angelo Alfano the pending cases in the Italian justice system at the end of 2006 amounted to nearly 9 million cases.

Over 5.4 million were civil cases, and over 3.3million criminal cases. Of these 3.3 million penal cases, over 1/3 were first trials, the rest were appeals. Compared to the rest of Europe Italy’s pending workload amounted to 3 times the one from France, over 6 times the one of Germany, and 5 times the one from Spain. The criminal cases pending in the first trial alone are 1.2 million, a figure twice as large as the one of Germany, Spain and England combined!

This situation, coupled with the fact that the number of Italian magistrates is about the same as other similar European countries, has resulted in an incredibly slow process. On average a criminal trial lasts 426 days in the first trial, and 730 days at the appeal trial, a duration much longer than any other EU country. The Perugia case was therefore faster than average, having lasted less than a year.

This situation is exacerbated by the broad appeal rights guaranteed also on the 2nd level of appeal, at the Supreme Court of Cassation. Like other supreme courts around the world, such court does not re-examine the entire body of evidence, but only ‘errores in iudicando’ and ‘errores in procedendo’ (errors in procedure or application of the law).

However, unlike its American or English counterparts, the Italian Supreme Court cannot refuse to review a case, and defendants have unlimited appeal rights to the Supreme Court of Cassation. They don’t even have to wait for the Appeal Court. You can in fact appeal to the Supreme Court directly after the first trial.

To give an idea of what this creates I’ll cite some figures. The US Supreme Court renders annually about 120 decisions. The Supreme Court in England about 75. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation issues over 30,000 sentences every year!! No surprise then about the huge backlog, in spite of the fact that the Italian Supreme court consists of over 400 judges (called Consiglieri), divided into various sections (each of 5 consiglieri), all nominated by the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (CSM), the Italian Magistrates’ self governing body explained in a previous post.

Besides the broad appeal rights granted by the Italian law, an ulterior incentive to appeal is given by the fact that Italy has a very high “Reversal Rate” during the appeal process. Approximately half of all sentences rendered in the first trial are in fact reversed during the appeal process, a percentage which is 3 times higher than France for example. The ones that are not reversed often see a decrease in punishment.

No surprise therefore that Italians always appeal their sentences. And some analysts have even ventured to say that Italian appeal courts like to modify the sentences of the first trial just for the purpose of justifying their own existence.

Given these facts, coupled with the chronic lack of prison space, it shouldn’t be a surprise that in spite of the Cosa Nostra, the Camorra and N’drangheta (as the mafia is called in the various regions), Italy has maybe the absolute lowest prison population in the world in relationship to the total population.

Italy in fact has 66 inmates for every 1 million population, a figure matched only by Denmark, a country certainly not famous for their organized crime. By comparison, the US boasts a prison population of more than 750 inmates over 1 million inhabitants, a figure 12 times the one in Italy.


[Image Above: Italian “Guardasigilli” (Justice Minister) Angelo Alfano]


Monday, April 19, 2010

Knox Appeal Points Seem Essentially Points That Gained Limited Traction In The Trial

Posted by Peter Quennell


And the fact that the prosecution will get a shot at firming up their case does seem to have caught the defenses off-balance.

US-based Knox family legal advisor Ted Simon has appeared several times on US networks in the last few days, seemingly clean out of new ideas for how to get Amanda Knox off.

No motive? Well, a motive does not have to be confirmed in Italy, but Micheli, Mignini and Massei all suggested credible motives, each involving an escalation of violence, and each probably involving drugs as one component - drugs like enhanced (skunk) cannabis, crystal meth, and cocaine increasingly seem to be triggering psychotic episodes that can lead to murder.

No DNA in the room? Well, most murders take place with no DNA left behind, and if Knox was the one simply holding the large knife and uttering threats, there is no reason why her DNA should have have deposited. Rudy Guede left only a few microscopic traces of DNA, but clearly he too was in the room. And there was plenty of forensic evidence implicating Knox right outside of Meredith’s door.

And as usual, Ted Simon skirts the very problematic rearrangement of the crime scene, and the testimony of various key witnesses, and the very incriminating pattern of phone calls, and the major discordance between all the alibis.

Pity that the US reporters never ever seem to press him on these things.

And in Perugia, it seems that Mr Ghirga and Mr Della Vedova are also only going through the motions - recycling just a few of their points that were already not too convincing at the trial. Andrea Vogt reported on the grounds for their appeal in the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

The 220-page document filed with the of Court of Appeals in Perugia on Saturday morning is a total appeal of all the points of the sentence, said Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga from Perugia in an interview with the Seattlepi.com.

“It includes the first days of the interrogation, the DNA and the traces detected with luminol. We re-iterate the innocence of Amanda and remain convinced there is not proof of her presence at the scene of the crime,” Ghirga said….

The hotly contested forensic evidence presented in the trial played an important role in the jury’s reasoning but was not the only element that led them to convict. Inconsistent statements, witness testimony, Knox’s placing the blame on an innocent man, which she maintains she did under police pressure, and the staging of the crime scene were also cited as key factors by the jury.

Knox’s legal teams are expected to contest all points, but are also asking for a third-party review of the forensic evidence. Such a request was rejected once already during the 9-month trial, but a different appeals court judge could decide to grant such an independent review. In Knox’s case, lawyers are contesting the kitchen knife that prosecutors said was the murder weapon that had Knox’s DNA on the handle and a trace amount of Kercher’s on the blade.

Knox’s lawyers also contest the luminol-positive traces discovered in the corridor (footprints) and the spot in the roommates room where prosecutors say Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, later staged a break-in to make the scene look like a rape-robbery to throw off investigators. Police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni testified during the trial that these luminol-positive traces had mixed genetic material of Knox and Kercher.


Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Rudy Guede Appeal: The Published Judgement Of The Court Of Appeal

Posted by Peter Quennell


The AGI News Service carried the full wording of the judgement which was published after the court session concluded. The translation below was kindly provided by our poster Tiziano.

The Court of the Assizes of Perugia at a hearing in chambers has published through a reading of the purview of the sentence the following judgement with reference to Articles 443, 605, 599 of the Code of Penal Procedure,

In partial emendation of the judgement handed down on October 28th, 2008, by the GUP of the Law Court of Perugia, in the matter of Rudy Hermann Guede, appealed against by the former, previously allowed the reduction of general mitigating circumstances, equivalent to the contested aggravating circumstances, reduces the sentence of the appellant to 16 years incarceration.

It confirms the remainder of the contested sentence. 

It condemns the appellant to payment of the expenses of the defence of the civil complainant Aldalia Tattanelli , which it liquidates in total as 1,500 euros.

Of those [legal costs] of the civil complainants John Leslie Kercher, Arline Carol Kercher, John Ashley Kercher, Lyle Kercher, it liquidates in total as 8,000 euros each, as well as that of the defence of Stephanie Arline Kercher, which it liquidates in total as 5000 euros.

It assigns the period of 90 days as the limit for the lodging of questions for the motivations for this judgement.

                                                         

Added: The post has been corrected and the translation above clarified in light of poster Nicki’s comment below - several of us took it to mean that the main award to Meredith’s family that had been reduced.

For the record, the financial awards that Judge Micheli handed down at the end of October 2008 against Rudy Guede were 2 million Euros each to Meredith’s parents John and Arline, and 1.5 million Euros each to Lyle, John junior, and Stephanie.

That is about US $12.1 million at today’s exchange rate. 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/23/09 at 09:34 AM
Links in right column Hearings and trialsGuede trialThe appeals
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendPerugia MF ForumComments here (10)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Rudy Guede Appeal: And The Outcome Is A Reduction Of His Sentence From 30 To 16 Years

Posted by Peter Quennell


Update: As TJMK poster Commisario Montalbano had warned in his posts and comments below Rudy Guede stood to get his sentence reduced to about this amount. 

1) The extenuating circumstances extended to Knox and Sollecito are now taken into account.

2) Because Guede had selected a short-form trial he was eligible anyway for a sentence 1/3 less than that of Sollecito and Knox.

Fairly automatic in fact. We see nothing in this that should provide any comfort to Knox and Sollecito that their own verdicts will be overturned. 

Emailed for inclusion here by Commisario Montalbano.

The two appeals are totally independent. The judges are different too. The process for an appeal of an abbreviated trial are subject to the procedures of Art. 599 of the CPP, which are different from the full appeal of an appellate Court of Assizes, the tougher process that Knox and Sollecito must contend with.

This judge simply expected that Amanda and Raffaele will get their sentence confirmed in appeal, and he then acted accordingly. Basically he granted to Guede the same ‘attenuanti generiche’ applied to the two of them.

And then with the 1/3 auto-reduction for his short-form trial Guede got his sentence reduced to 16 years.

On the appeal of AK and RS anything can happen, but the most likely scenario is a confirmation of the sentence. The only way they’ll get out of it is if a majority of jurors see grounds for reasonable doubt based on ‘insufficient evidence’.

That’s not too likely, but possible.

The 16 years is arrived at because Knox and Sollecito each received 24 years for Meredith’s murder. Sollecito received an extra year, and Knox an extra two years, for the other crimes for which they were found guilty. 

Our legal advisers tell us that all three sentences seem to be light by American standards.


**************

Posted earlier: The decision is not yet announced. But it should be decided within two or three hours. The court is now in closed session.

Yesterday Guede’s two lawyers, court-appointed Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, asked at the outset for his acquittal for their client.

Seemingly contradictorily to us, they also asked for the granting of the extenuating circumstances already granted to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

They said their client is frank, young, not a liar, has not slandered anyone, and is the only one that has always told the same version of events.

As our posts below explain, this is not strictly correct. Guede in fact subtly backed off his claims of intimate relations with Meredith and of clearly having seen Sollecito.

The prosecution repeated their demand that Guede have his full term in prison affirmed, and the lawyer for Meredith’s family did likewise.

By the way, some of our emails, several quite passionately, argue for the innocence, partial or total, of Rudy Guede. There is a feeling that he was either set up or fully framed for the crime.

Though even he admits that he left Meredith to die, and that he never called an ambulance that might have saved her.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/22/09 at 08:19 AM
Links in right column Hearings and trialsGuede trialThe appeals
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendPerugia MF ForumComments here (43)

Monday, December 21, 2009

Rudy Guede Appeal: Not Yet The Hoped-For Last-Minute Story Change

Posted by Tiziano


As my fellow poster Commisario Montalbano explains under the post directly below, Rudy Guede might get several years off, for some equity relative to the Knox-Sollecito sentences.

But other than that, his appeal grounds still don’t consist of coming clean and giving us all, Meredith’s family and friends especially, the full story of why and how things happened as they did which might make a SERIOUS difference.

This is a translated summary of the report in advance of today’s hearings from the news agency Adnkronos

Rudy Guede has 2 days to risk all for his future, 48 hours to dismantle the “concrete castle” of reasons for his guilty verdict and 30 years in gaol

Now serving his term in prison in Viterbo, Guede, 23, a former basketball player plays his last cards Monday & Tuesday in Appeal Court; the appeals court has already refused to reopen his case and requests for more expert reports made by Gentile & Biscotto, his lawyers

The riskiest card to play? That of sexual violence. Guede says he was in the bathroom when two assassins entered, one of whom was Amanda Knox; his only guilt was in not helping Meredith; He says he was in intimate contact with Meredith, but not against her will

Meredith’s body was found half-clothed although she did not have major bruising. Guede claims Meredith was dying but fully clothed when he ran away; he asks why he would have simulated violence; that would have directed blame against him as he had had contact with her. Thus someone else turned the house over and undressed Meredith according to Guede; proving this, her legs were not blood-stained, so she was wearing jeans when killed

There is a hard battle ahead [in these two days]: the reasons for the 1st stage trial verdict [Judge Micheli’s] were not in doubt according [Judge Micheli], and the prosecutor has asked already for confirmation. But in the meantime [the past one year] other things have transpired

Guede chose his fast-track trial in hope of a discounted sentence, but in fact received the heaviest of the sentences: Knox & Sollecito were granted some relief on their penalties as they were recognized as deserving general mitigating circumstances, resulting in their sentences of 26 & 25 years respectively

Although his case is independent of AK/RS trial, he continues to say:“Now there is confirmation that my verdict was unjust”  Guede’s lawyers will ask for his full acquittal, but he would get just below 20 years even if he were only granted mitigating circumstances

On Monday the civil complainants will appear; and Maresca & Perna (for the Kercher family) will come first at the hearing; then it will be the turn of Guede’s defenders

And this is translated from this morning’s El Messagero

Guede has claimed in a statement that he was only guilty of failure to help Meredith: He did not kill her, neither did he violate her. He claims there was a difference of opinion between AK & MK over money.

He turned to Kercher lawyers & stated that he wished Meredith’s parents to know his only fault was in his failure to assist their daughter as she lay dying

Added: The AGI news service is reporting from the hearings Guede’s lawyers are bitterly attacking the media and especially Knox’s and Sollecito’s lawyers for trying to pin all the blame onto him.


Sunday, December 20, 2009

Guede Appeal Outcome Mon-Tues Could be An Indicator To Knox-Sollecito Appeal Outcome

Posted by Peter Quennell


The top eight posts here represent our previous reporting on Rudy Guede’s appeal.

Commissario Montalbano’s recent post on the Italian appeals process is also vital reading here.

The appeals grounds seemed thin, and the appeals judge will be very thoroughly acquainted with the report of the judge who first sentenced him, Judge Micheli.

There were only two variations to his original story in the appeal hearings: that he had not had intimate relations with Meredith, and that he had seen and identified Knox but not Sollecito. In his trial, his story was that he had identified Sollecito by appearance if not by name, and that he might have heard Knox nearby.

He emphasized that he briefly tried to save Meredith. But of course he fled without ever calling an ambulance, even anonymously, and Meredith was left clutching her wounded neck, with her door locked and her mobile phones removed. Guede then went out to a disco before taking to his heels to Milan and then Germany.

Recently Guede was mysteriously attacked in prison. Connected or not? Who knows? But Rudy might be thinking that 30 years in prison with time off for behavior is a better bet than another possible attack that ends worse.

The pro-Knox and Sollecito factions seem to be banking on their appeals late 2010 being a whole new trial. Guede’s appeals judge simply refused to reopen the whole case with new witnesses, and the November hearings were over very quickly.

Our Italian experts tell us that if Guede gets freedom, then Knox and Sollecito may expect to see freedom too. And if Guede gets his sentence reduced or confirmed, then that is very likely to be their fate too.

For why they all seem to be so joined at the hip read here and here. The Guede-as-lone-wolf theory never even got to first base.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/20/09 at 10:07 AM
Links in right column Hearings and trialsGuede trialRS + AK trialThe appeals
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendPerugia MF ForumComments here (3)

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Explaining How The Italian Appeals Process Works - And Why It Is Now So Slow

Posted by Commissario Montalbano


Above is Vincenzo Carbone, Prime President of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, addressing the Italian Supreme Court.

The appeal process in the Italian judicial system is disciplined by art. 593 et seq. of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure (CPP).

Both the defendant and the prosecution have the right to appeal a sentence, according to the principle of parity of the two parties in a judicial process. In 2006 a law passed by the Berlusconi government (known as “Pecorella Law”, from the name of his sponsor), intended to prohibit the right of appeal of the prosecutor, similarly to what happens in the US, however the Italian Constitutional Court struck down that law as unconstitutional since it is in violation of the parity of the two parties in the process, as explained above. As a result the CPP has been modified to reflect its original version.

It is to be noted however, that if only the defendant requests an appeal (and not the prosecution), then the appeal court can only confirm or decrease the sentence of the first trial, but not increase it.

Since Mignini has already said that they won’t appeal the case, Amanda and Raffaele are likely to see their jail sentence decreased by a few years, or at most confirmed, but not increased. Art. 575 of the Italian Penal Code however prescribes a minimum of 21 years for voluntary homicide.

The principle of “double jeopardy”, which is also guaranteed by Italian law and by the law of all members of the European Union as condition of membership, does not apply to the appeal trial, as such trial is interpreted as being a mere continuation of the same first trial. The double jeopardy principle will therefore apply only after the sentence is definitive, i.e. after the Supreme Court of Cassation decision. In other words if Amanda and Raffaele are found not guilty after all the appeals are exhausted, the Italian state will not be able to try them again in the future.

This characteristic is not unique to Italy, most European countries, in fact, apply the double jeopardy only after all appeals have exhausted, among these Germany and France, which also permit the appeal by the prosecution.

The competence of the appeal process is disciplined by art 594 of the CPP. Such article establishes that the Appeal Court of Assizes has jurisdiction over the sentences rendered by the Court of Assizes. The Court of Assizes is the court in Italy which tries serious crimes, that is those crimes for which the penal code provides a maximum punishment of at least 24 years.

In this case the Corte d’Assise d’Appello of Perugia will have jurisdiction over the case. However the defense may request a change of venue, if they can demonstrate just cause.

The terms of the request for appeal are disciplined by art. 595 of the CPP. Such article specifies, among other things, that the party requesting the appeal can do so within 15 days from the day the Sentence is communicated. If such sentence is particularly complex (as this case is) the judge can request that the “Motivazione della Sentenza”, often referred to in TJMK as the Judge’s Report, or be filed with the court within 90 days from the end of the trial. In this circumstance the terms to file an appeal is 45 days, instead of 15.

The Italian constitution requires that all sentences be accompanied by this Report, including appeal sentences. As we’ve seen with Judge Micheli’s Report on Rudy Guede’s trial, the Sentence Motivation Report must explain the entire rationale that the judges utilized to reach the decision. The lack of such report would invalidate the sentence.

Once one or more parties to the trial requests an appeal, within 15 days from the day such Motivation report is communicated, the competent court will then acquire all the documentation regarding the case. The court will then notifies all parties of the beginning of the hearing at least 20 days before the commencement day.

As mentioned above, the appeal process in Italy is a brand new trial where all evidence and testimony is analyzed in the same terms as the first trial. The standards are however higher. The president of the Appeal Court of Assizes is in fact a judge from the Supreme Court of Cassation (the members of the Supreme Court are actually called “Consiglieri”). The requisites for being one of the 6 jurors are also higher. They must be all holding a high school degree (in the first trial the minimum required is only a middle school education).



[Image Above: The Seat of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, in the Hall of Justice in Rome, also known as “Il Palazzaccio” or the Ugly Palace].

The extraordinary broad appeal rights awarded by the Italian system are all part of the 1989 reform, which intended to add even more guarantees to the right of the accused. This has resulted in an incredible increase in pending cases in the overburdened Italian justice system. According to the latest report to Parliament by Justice Minister Angelo Alfano the pending cases in the Italian justice system at the end of 2006 amounted to nearly 9 million cases.

Over 5.4 million were civil cases, and over 3.3million criminal cases. Of these 3.3 million penal cases, over 1/3 were first trials, the rest were appeals. Compared to the rest of Europe Italy’s pending workload amounted to 3 times the one from France, over 6 times the one of Germany, and 5 times the one from Spain. The criminal cases pending in the first trial alone are 1.2 million, a figure twice as large as the one of Germany, Spain and England combined!

This situation, coupled with the fact that the number of Italian magistrates is about the same as other similar European countries, has resulted in an incredibly slow process. On average a criminal trial lasts 426 days in the first trial, and 730 days at the appeal trial, a duration much longer than any other EU country. The Perugia case was therefore faster than average, having lasted less than a year.

This situation is exacerbated by the broad appeal rights guaranteed also on the 2nd level of appeal, at the Supreme Court of Cassation. Like other supreme courts around the world, such court does not re-examine the entire body of evidence, but only ‘errores in iudicando’ and ‘errores in procedendo’ (errors in procedure or application of the law).

However, unlike its American or English counterparts, the Italian Supreme Court cannot refuse to review a case, and defendants have unlimited appeal rights to the Supreme Court of Cassation. They don’t even have to wait for the Appeal Court. You can in fact appeal to the Supreme Court directly after the first trial.

To give an idea of what this creates I’ll cite some figures. The US Supreme Court renders annually about 120 decisions. The Supreme Court in England about 75. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation issues over 30,000 sentences every year!! No surprise then about the huge backlog, in spite of the fact that the Italian Supreme court consists of over 400 judges (called Consiglieri), divided into various sections (each of 5 consiglieri), all nominated by the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (CSM), the Italian Magistrates’ self governing body explained in a previous post.

Besides the broad appeal rights granted by the Italian law, an ulterior incentive to appeal is given by the fact that Italy has a very high “Reversal Rate” during the appeal process. Approximately half of all sentences rendered in the first trial are in fact reversed during the appeal process, a percentage which is 3 times higher than France for example. The ones that are not reversed often see a decrease in punishment.

No surprise therefore that Italians always appeal their sentences. And some analysts have even ventured to say that Italian appeal courts like to modify the sentences of the first trial just for the purpose of justifying their own existence.

Given these facts, coupled with the chronic lack of prison space, it shouldn’t be a surprise that in spite of the Cosa Nostra, the Camorra and N’drangheta (as the mafia is called in the various regions), Italy has maybe the absolute lowest prison population in the world in relationship to the total population.

Italy in fact has 66 inmates for every 1 million population, a figure matched only by Denmark, a country certainly not famous for their organized crime. By comparison, the US boasts a prison population of more than 750 inmates over 1 million inhabitants, a figure 12 times the one in Italy.

If Amanda and Raffaele really wanted to experience the thrill of committing a murder, Italy is definitely the place to do it, and get away with it!
 


[Image Above: Italian “Guardasigilli” (Justice Minister) Angelo Alfano]


Thursday, November 19, 2009

Rudy Guede Appeal: Meredith Family’s Lawyer Very Disappointed At “Lost Last Chance”

Posted by Peter Quennell


Mr Maresca sounds intensely frustrated at what might have been. 

Here was a chance to put this whole thing to rest with a single truth and an act of real contrition and compassion to Meredith’s family - and Rudy really blew it.

“He could have saved her. He could have acted to save her, then he wouldn’t be here asking forgiveness….  Requests for pardon are always welcome, however, in a civilised country. I think that a positive reaction would have at least led to an immediate intervention, if what Rudy said was true.”

Not surprisingly, the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito are critical of Rudy Guede for not letting their clients off the hook - though he really no further implicated the defendants than he did back at his own trial.

His recent mysterious and unprovoked beating-up in his prison may have had an influence on his frame of mind in court today. Amazing though, as the defense teams incessantly paint him as the lone wolf perpetrator (a theory Judge Micheli discounted at great length) which we know burns him up.

Our poster Tiziano kindly translated this final report on the day from Il Messagero. The article is an update of an earlier report.

REOPENING OF DEBATE REJECTED.

The Appeal Court of the Assizes of Perugia has rejected the request of Rudy’s defence lawyers for the partial reopening of the debate.

PG: ACCOUNT NOT CREDIBLE.

According to the Prosecutor General, what Rudy said was a “little tale which was not credible”. According to the PG a “progression of lesions” was found on Kercher’s body, and death came in a much longer time than what Guede indicated.

PG: NO GENERAL REMISSIONS.

Guede was condemned to thirty years imprisonment on October 28th, 2008 by Perugia GUP Paoli Micheli. His defence lawyers, Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, have appealed against this sentence. In fact the Ivorian has always maintained that he had nothing to do with the murder.

The Prosecutor has not contested the sentencing report, which actually accepted the reconstruction made by the first stage prosecutors PMs Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini.

Today PG Catalani in his summing-up spoke of “full involvement in all the activities to the damage of Meredith Kercher” on Guede’s part.. Moreover, he underlined that the accused should not be conceded general remissions “because he has made no contribution at all in clarifying what happened in the crime house when Meredith was killed”.

KERCHER LAWYER: HE COULD HAVE SAVED HER

“He could have saved her. He could have acted to save her, then he wouldn’t be here asking forgiveness,” replied Francesco Maresca, the lawyer for the civil claim of the family of Meredith Kercher, to Rudy Guede’s words which he asked him to pass on to the relations of the English student killed in Perugia.

“Requests for pardon are always welcome, however, in a civilised country,” he added. “I think that a positive reaction would have at least led to an immediate intervention, if what Rudy says is true,” Maresca added.

However the lawyer talked about a “lost last chance” on the part of the Ivorian to clarify what happened in Via della Pergola. He continued “His words seemed prepared to me.”

And in court, referring to the fact that Guede claimed to have run away in fear, Maresca affirmed,“We ought to think of the fear suffered by Meredith.” As far as the summing up of the PG, the lawyer defined it as “absolutely exact”.

KNOX DEFENCE: GUEDE’S WORDS IRRELEVANT FOR AMANDA

The spontaneous statement made by Guede is “absolutely irrelevant to the position of Amanda Knox.” Luciano Ghirga, one of the defence lawyers for the American said this. “I’m talking with absolute respect about the position of Rudy Guede and his defence - Ghirga underlined - but when he had the opportunity to respond in cross-examination between the parties, in a hearing in front of the world, he refused. I consider his position to be self-serving.”

Then the Lawyer claimed that in the first stage trial of Knox and Raffaele Sollecito “neither the five interrogations of Guede nor his first stage sentencing report are part of the trial, and much less so can his spontaneous statements of today be considered.”

SOLLECITO’S LAWYER: GUEDE HAS LOST A CHANCE

Rudy Guede “has lost the opportunity to tell the truth”, according to lawyer Luca Maori, one of the defence for Raffaele Sollecito, the young man accused of the crime together with his ex-girlfriend Amanda Knox (the summing-up of the PM in the first stage of their trial is on the agenda for Friday) and the same Ivory Coast man.

“Guede continues the old stereotype - Maori said further - according to which he doesn’t know the male person present in the crime house, even though he saw his face. But it is necessary for everyone, and especially for him, to finally tell the truth and to assume his responsibility before the Kercher family.”

 

Mr Maori’s words at bottom above are very curious - perhaps they are quoted out of context. He’s presumably inferring that Guede should have pointed AWAY from Raffaele Sollecito, his client, and instead toward a mysterious missing Person X.

If so, invoking the best interest of Meredith’s family here seems pretty vile - even for a hard-pressed defense lawyer. He should not be denying their true justice. 



Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Rudy Guede Appeal: Court Adjourned - Defense Closing And Court Decision December 21st

Posted by Peter Quennell



[Above: The lawyer for Meredith’s family, Mr Maresca, in the courtroom today]

This late report is by Paolo Santalucia of the Associated Press

Later Wednesday, prosecutor Pietro Catalani asked the court to confirm the sentence of 30 years in jail for Guede.

“He is not credible,” Catalani said, adding that wounds on Kercher’s body suggest it took far longer for her to die than Guede’s testimony indicated.

Proceedings were adjourned to Dec. 21, when Guede’s defense lawyers will argue their case.

The court had rejected the request of the Guede appeal team to reopen several components of the investigation, to bring in new witnesses, and to hear testimony on stress psychology and on the towel found beside Meredith.

This does not bode well for his appeal prospects.

Judge Micheli summarised a lot of evidence proving that Guede was throughout a part of the vicious assault on Meredith. He handed Guede a rape conviction as well as a murder conviction and Guede is serving his 30 years in the sex offenders’ wing of Viterbo Prison north of Rome.

Probably the best Guede could have done would have been to come clean, relate the full story, and claim that he was unaware from the other assailants of where events were headed.

But that Guede did not call an ambulance seems to have sealed Meredith’s fate forever. The prosecutor today said Guede had PLENTY of time to call an ambulance while Meredith would still have been alive.

Instead, Guede abandoned Meredith to die slowly and painfully, he went home to clean up, and he went out to a disco.  Thirty years seems pretty light for doing that.


Rudy Guede Appeal: Nick Pisa Of Sky News Reports

Posted by Peter Quennell

[Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Version 8 is having a widely reported problem showing these online Flash videos; other browsers all seem to work fine]


Rudy Guede Appeal: Yes Guede Testimony Does Sound Far From The Full Truth

Posted by Tiziano



[click for larger image]

1) La Stampa runs essentially the same story as Nicki translated and posted jut below, but with this addition.

In court this morning there was also the psychiatrist Alessandro Meluzzi, who together with the criminologist Vincenzo Mastronardi, provided expert testimony for the defence on the behaviour of the accused after the crime.

Guede fled and was arrested in Germany. This was behaviour of “flight and avoidance”, according to Meluzzi, linked to “traumatic stress syndrome” which struck him after the crime.


2) Corriere della Sera also has ess entially the same story but with these additions.

The defence of the young man intends to ask for the partial reopening of the trial debate to hear new witnesses and to hear from others already heard by the prosecution, but who - according to the lawyers - could give a different version from the initial one.

The lawyers also are putting their hopes on the possibility of a new expert report on the towels found next to the English student’s lifeless body, which Guede claims to have used in an effort to help Meredith, staunching the wound to her neck.

The aim of the defence is to show that it was not Rudy to kill Meredith that evening, because as the young man has always claimed, he was at the house at Via della Pergola on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, but when the crime happened he was in the bathroom. 

Once he came out, he clashed with Mez’ assassin for a moment.  He tried to help the girl but then, overcome with fear, he took flight. 

To specifically evaluate this thesis, the defence of the Ivorian has had an expert report done by the criminologist Vincenzo Mastronardi and the psychiatrist Alessandro Merluzzi, who were both in court. 

Speaking to journalists before the hearing began, Merluzzi explained how Rudy, after the facts, was overcome by “post traumatic stress syndrome” in which a ” gentle, weak but mild personality like Rudy’s was able to put into action the flight behaviour, which certainly did nothing for his credibility but which we believe is completely understandable and explained from the psychological point of view, clinical psychology and psycho-dynamics.” 

Merluzzi explained, “We believe that our evaluation will give the judges an element of evaluation which is new and different not only in the facts which have emerged from the supporting proceedings, but also on the reasons and motivations which incited Rudy.”



[click for larger image]


Rudy Guede Appeal: His Story In His Own Words - Not Sounding Like The Much-Wanted Full Truth

Posted by Jools



[click for larger image]

Translated from the Italian in Il Messaggero:

The process of second-degree [appeal] for Rudy Guede, already sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for the complicity in the murder of Meredith Kercher, commences.

The Court of Appeal of Perugia has decided to have the hearing in public court, admitting the request by the defendant. Guede has asked that the appeal process be conducted in open court “so that all may know the truth.” In attendance reporters were allowed but not photographers or TV cameras.

“I want to say to the Kercher family that I did not kill nor rape their daughter. I’m not the one who has taken her life” he said, addressing Guede’s lawyer Francesco Maresca, who represents Mez family as a civil party. “The single thing that my conscience must answer and for which no court will absolve me, is that of not having done everything possible to save the English student’s life.”

During the spontaneous statement, Guede reconstructed what happened the night of Meredith’s the murder. He explained that he had met the student on 31 October 2007during a party at a nightclub, and that he had made an appointment with her for the following evening.

“I gave her a little kiss on the cheek and then I said see you,” explained the Ivorian, telling the court that on the evening following that meeting, he entered together with Kercher in the house on Via della Pergola. “While we were at home, Meredith began to charge against Amanda (Knox, her roommate, was charged with the murder along with former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito,): “My money, my money, gone, I can not stand her any more,” said Meredith. I had an approach with Mez, but not sex.

After about fifteen minutes I went to the bathroom.

Amanda and Meredith fought. I heard the voices of Meredith and Amanda discussing money missing. I only heard “we need to talk.”  I was not worried because I thought it was just an argument between two girls who lived in the same house.

While I was in the bathroom I started to listen to music from an i-pod, but in the middle of the third song I heard a loud scream. I rushed to see what had happened and in Meredith’s room I saw a male figure.

It was a flash and this person tried to hit me. I reversed and fell down in the living room. Then I heard someone running away outside the house and said “let’s get out, there is a black man in the house”. I did not have the courage to pursue them, but looking out the window I saw the silhouette of Amanda.

I went to Meredith’s room and tried to staunch the blood that came out after being mortally wounded with a knife to the throat. Meredith was dying and sought to tell me something, I held her hand.

Then I went into a state of shock. In my head there were so many why’s unanswered. I was afraid.”

[Below: Guede lawyers Mr Gentile, left, Mr Biscotti, center, and an aide, right]

Posted by Jools on 11/18/09 at 08:30 AM
Links in right column Hearings and trialsGuede trialThe appealsThe three defendantsRudy Guede
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendPerugia MF ForumComments here (0)

Rudy Guede Appeal: Sky News Italy First Report In Italian

Posted by Peter Quennell

[Micrsoft’s Internet Explorer Version 8 is having a widely reported problem showing these online Flash videos; other browsers all seem to work fine]


Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Half A U-Turn In Guede’s Appeal Grounds? Perhaps Guede IS Growing A Brain

Posted by Peter Quennell


A week ago we posted that Guede’s intended claims were really ugly.

Guede then was still intent on claiming consensual intimate relations with Meredith as his reason for being in the house at the time, even though nobody, especially not Judge Micheli, seems to believe that.

Now we seem to be getting a new and revised version from Guede’s lawyers [image below]. Il Messagero has the interview in Italian (links here and here) and the translation below is by our poster Tiziano.

Though there is no new explanation why Guede was there, this version seems to drop the very ugly claim that he was there for consensual relations with Meredith. It also seems to admit that he was a part of the struggle with Meredith, even though he still says he saw Knox only in silhouette.

And he never saw the final event coming, he was slashed by one of the others [see image at bottom], he attempted to save Meredith’s life with some towels, and he then fled in a panic. (He then of course went home, cleaned up, and headed out to a discotheque.)

For this to be a full U-turn to the truth and serious time off his 30-year sentence, Guede still presumably has to admit that (1) he was in the house nefariously, (2) he did see the attackers very close-up, (3) he can give a PRECISE accounting of the motive, and (4) he has VERY serious remorse.

He should look the Kercher family right in the eyes and say how infinitely sad and sorry he is that he played a part in Meredith’s passing.

Perhaps Rudy is getting there. He still has two weeks to do so. By the way, it is interesting, as in the image below, how often Guede’s two lawyers are being seen together these days with Mr Maresca, the Kercher family’s lawyer.

Verrry interesting.

RUDY ON THE ATTACK: “AMANDA WAS THERE, I TRIED TO SAVE MEZ”

Tuesday, November 3rd 2009

By: ITALO CARMIGNANI and VANNA UGOLINI

PERUGIA - Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the young girlfriend and boyfriend, are the murderers of Meredith. “That night I was attacked by a young man who was armed, I heard the voice of Amanda and I saw her outline from the window.”

A little more than two weeks before Rudy Guede’s appeal, the young Ivorian already condemned to thirty years for the sexual assault and murder of student, Meredith Kercher, continues to defend himself, going on the attack.  He does so above all denying having “exonerated” Amanda during that chat, the Internet exchange with a friend while he was on the run in Germany.

He does so in an effort to explain why there are mainly traces of him in that room, dirtied by blood, where Meredith was slowly dying: his genetic imprint on the victim’s body and other articles, the print of his shoe with its bloody sole.

The prosecution has interpreted these signs as a type of signature from the murderer, but according to Rudy’s lawyers Nicodemo Gentile and Valter Biscotti [images below] the presence of these traces must be read in a different way.

“The explanation is clear,” says lawyer Nicodemo Gentile.  “The judge [Micheli] does not take the trouble to face up to this situation in his reasons for condemning Rudy.  But the only plausible explanation is this:  the other two accused strike the fatal blow to Meredith and almost simultaneously run out of the house, frightened by the victim’s harrowing scream.  On the other hand, Rudy stays in the room after struggling with one of the attackers, he plays for time in the attempt to staunch the wound with towels, he moves around the Meredith’s bleeding body.  This is why Rudy leaves traces and the others do not.”

Well then, why does Rudy flee instead of calling the police?  “Because he is afraid, he’s distraught.”  The lawyers have foreshadowed the fact that they will call for a psychiatric report about Rudy’s behaviour after the murder, about his disorganised and “disassociated” flight, which is regarded by the judge, however, as a serious indication of guilt.  “This is the disassociated flight of a young man who is overcome by what he has seen, not that of an assassin.”

According to Gentile, the two young people then “run away straight after the mortal blow, and then come back to alter the scene of the crime with all the precautions of the case.  The fact that the two move around bare-footed proves this, as is evidenced by the discovery of sole prints enhanced by luminol which belong to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”  Furthermore, “this reconstruction is perfectly compatible with the accounts of Mrs Capezzali and Curatolo.” 

The former gave evidence that she heard a scream and then the noise of someone running on the gravel in front of Meredith’s house (but a further four witnesses say that neither saw nor heard anything).  Curatolo claims that he saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana between 9.30 and 11.30 PM, in a way giving the two young people an alibi.  Yet the accused do not confirm this alibi: they claim that they were at home on the night of the crime.

[A problem for Guede is that] when the police entered the house at Via della Pergola and discovered Meredith’s lifeless body, there were no signs of the aggression Rudy claims to have sustained from the murderer… That is, there were no overturned chairs nor was any blood found in the living room of the house in Via della Pergola.  This is another reason the judge did not find Rudy’s confession credible. 

But, according to Rudy and his lawyers, among other things the cuts on his hands, still visible when he was arrested in Germany, are evidence that there was an attack by the murderer…  For Gentile “the wounds photographed and described at the time of the arrest in Germany are unequivocal signs left by the attacker’s knife.” 

So Rudy will present himself at the Appeal Court on November 18th with the intention of talking and he will say: “That night I was attacked by a young fellow armed with a knife, I heard Amanda’s voice from outside and I saw her silhouette through the window.”




Thursday, October 29, 2009

Prediction: Guede’s Appeal Will Totally Fail - His Intentions Ugly And Likely To Anger

Posted by Peter Quennell



[click for larger image]

Rudy Guede opted for the fast-track trial in front of Judge Micheli last October. His side of things went approximately as follows at the time.

  • Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
  • He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

That was about it. Judge Micheli didn’t believe a word of it. In his 106-page report he described the voluminous evidence for this being a three-perpetrator crime. And he found it totally unlikely that Meredith would have had consensual relations with Guede that night.

Nothing at all known about Meredith’s intentions that night (she had an urgent assignment to complete) or her chaste moral behavior supports Guede’s claim, and his trashing of the poor victim seemed to anger Judge Micheli.

And so the judge handed Guede the maximum sentence available, thirty years, for murder and a sex crime, and wrote up the case against him in a pretty ironclad way.

Now Andrea Vogt is reporting from Perugia that in effect Rudy Guede will testify to the following at his appeal.

  • Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
  • He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

Huh? The ONLY way forward now in the opinion of our legal watchers which could get Guede years off his sentence is at this point to tell the truth.

Which seems to our legal watchers and us to be that Guede might have been somewhat accidentally there at the house, and might have been somehow roped in by the other two to a planned taunting and humiliation of Meredith.

That might have then led to her cruel death.

Truth and real penitence and great sorrow and sadness shown to the Kercher family, and a real respect for Meredith’s memory, might win him some points in his appeal.

But this above? If Guede proceeds with those intentions, his thirty years in the sex-offenders wing will be confirmed for sure, and he will face a lifetime of contempt. 

Grow a brain, Rudy. Try to do yourself some good. And maybe get yourself some new lawyers.

The quality of your legal advice seems atrocious.

Below: Guede’s lawyers Biscotti and Gentile with the Kerchers’ lawyer Maresca


Monday, March 09, 2009

Guede’s Grounds For Appeal Sound None Too Convincing

Posted by Peter Quennell


Click above for La Nazione’s report in Italian. Nick Pisa of the Daily Mail filed this report in English.

In lodging the appeal against his conviction and sentence (mandatory in Italy) his lawyers have offered no new exculpatory evidence.

Just claims that the other two did it, that an argument over Meredith’s stolen money was the motive, and that he was in the bathroom at the time.

Guede’s DNA was of course found right there at the scene of the crime, in Meredith’s room, and on Meredith’s body.

Considered in the context of the awesome detail of Judge Micheli’s report the grounds for his appeal sound almost laughable.

This is all being taken by some of the court analysts that Guede has nothing to bargain with that the prosecutors don’t already know.

And that they have great confidence in the strength of their case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Enjoy your 30 years in the slammer, Rudy Guede. You might even have saved Meredith’s life by calling for some help.

And you didn’t. It appears, in fact, that you chose not to.


Page 1 of 1 pages