Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[Malkmus]

I believe though that ultimately it would be the decision of the court. They could of actually just taken the 10 years and no further time off, or conversely they could of taken additional time off from what they did.

Yes, ultimately it's the decision of the court, ie judge and jury. All I'm saying otherwise is the prosecutor could also have chosen to appeal that Rudy's sentence be increased by 6 years as is happening with AK and RS. Ultimately though it would be up to the court whether that gets imposed or not. As it stands, Rudy only faces 16 years because the prosecutor isn't fighting for more, but AK and RS could face more because Mignini wants more added for reasons that seem unfair to me.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, ultimately it's the decision of the court, ie judge and jury. All I'm saying otherwise is the prosecutor could also have chosen to appeal that Rudy's sentence be increased by 6 years as is happening with AK and RS. Ultimately though it would be up to the court whether that gets imposed or not. As it stands, Rudy only faces 16 years because the prosecutor isn't fighting for more, but AK and RS could face more because Mignini wants more added for reasons that seem unfair to me.

ITA!!! need to read this again but something very wrong with this picture

I am thinking that there may of been a deal made here to keep his mouth shut hhhhhhmmmmmmm thus the in chamber sessions

something very fishy in the land of oz i mean italy

 

[miley]

Yes, but from what I can tell, it was his fast track trial which earned him the 8 year reduction, but oddly, it wasn't applied until after his appeals. As bizarre as this seems, it does appear to be the case. The 6 years off appears to be due to his clean record and "apology". I still believe the prosecutor simply chose not to appeal the sentence to have the 6 years added back on, though, and not because he couldn't.

Everything I'm reading says the appeals court cut his prison sentence to 16 years from 30. The article says 14 years for the "apology" - are you saying that 8 years for the fast track and 6 for clean record/apology - where are you reading this? I'm confused.

The prosecution could have appealed Rudy's sentence but chose not to... now it is too late to appeal
Perugia Shock:

Frank:The prosecutor general --which had asked to the Corte d'Assise d'Appello to confirm the 30 years for Guede-- didn't file any appeal. So, while Amanda and Raffaele still risk life in jail --since the prosecution appealed-- Rudi will not take more than 16 years. He could receive an additional discount or he could be acquitted. He has some chances, actually. At least, if The Knife theory will still be alive at the time of his Supreme Court trial. If.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/05/rudi-guedeslast-appeal.html​

 

[Malkmus]

Everything I'm reading says the appeals court cut his prison sentence to 16 years from 30. The article says 14 years for the "apology" - are you saying that 8 years for the fast track and 6 for clean record/apology - where are you reading this? I'm confused.

The prosecution could have appealed Rudy's sentence but chose not to... now it is too late to appeal
Perugia Shock:

Frank:The prosecutor general --which had asked to the Corte d'Assise d'Appello to confirm the 30 years for Guede-- didn't file any appeal. So, while Amanda and Raffaele still risk life in jail --since the prosecution appealed-- Rudi will not take more than 16 years. He could receive an additional discount or he could be acquitted. He has some chances, actually. At least, if The Knife theory will still be alive at the time of his Supreme Court trial. If.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/05/rudi-guedeslast-appeal.html​

That is what I'm saying, based on what both you and Otto have posted. It's the most sense I can make of it. But I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong on the math. As Allusonz has pointed out though the 1/3 works out to ten years, not 8. So this issue is definitely still open for debate. None of it really adds up after you do the math and I'm still not clear on everything.

 

[Allusonz]

Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 24 to match the sentences given to Amanda and Raffaele, and then was further reduced by 1/3 because he opted for a fast-track trial, resulting in a 16 year sentence.

"The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing Kercher's family, who argued for the original sentence to be left unchanged.

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

I dont think you are following me

If he takes the fast track and receives a 30 year sentence with an automatic 1/3 reduction he automatically goes to 20 years with or without an appeal

If the appeals court so deems that and additional reduction is warranted then you would deduct that from the 20 years

That does not appear to be the case as per the explanation thus we are questioning why

 

[otto]

I dont think you are following me

If he takes the fast track and receives a 30 year sentence with an automatic 1/3 reduction he automatically goes to 20 years with or without an appeal

If the appeals court so deems that and additional reduction is warranted then you would deduct that from the 20 years

That does not appear to be the case as per the explanation thus we are questioning why

The reduction of 1/3 is applied to the final sentence, not the sentence prior to appeal ... which makes sense. If the reduction had been applied to the initial sentence, and then further reduced by 6 years, Rudy would only serve 14 years.

Rudy's sentence, appeal and reasoning for the adjustment from 30 years to 24 years, and finally to 16 years, was decided and widely discussed in 2009.

I fail to understand how one could argue that Rudy was a small time drug dealer and petty thief, but at the same time argue that his sentence was reduced because of his good behavior.

 

[otto]

That is what I'm saying, based on what both you and Otto have posted. It's the most sense I can make of it. But I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong on the math. As Allusonz has pointed out though the 1/3 works out to ten years, not 8. So this issue is definitely still open for debate. None of it really adds up after you do the math and I'm still not clear on everything.

For those that opt for the fast-track, this is the law:

"The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years." (see previous link)

Amanda and Raffaele did not opt for fast-track, so a crime (murder) punishable by life imprisonment is not limited to 30 years. For Rudy, his crime, also punishable by life imprisonment, is limited to 30 years (by law).

Rudy was given the maximum sentence that he was allowed by law: 30 years. The prosecutors could not appeal to have that 30 sentence lengthened, as the law stipulates that even though the crime is punishable by life in prison, 30 years is the max for fast-track trials. The prosecutors could object to a reduction of the 30 year sentence during appeal, but they could not appeal to have the sentence extended.

During the first trial, Rudy was given the maximum allowable sentence. This sentence was not written in stone, as he was automatically entitled to an appeal. His appeal was successful, and his sentence was reduced to match the sentences of the two convicted murderers that were found guilty of the same crime. That is, Rudy's sentence was reduced to 24 years to match the sentence of Amanda and Raffaele. At this time, after the appeal, the 1/3 reduction, for the fast-track option, was applied and the resulting sentence was 16 years.

 

[otto]

ITA!!! need to read this again but something very wrong with this picture

I am thinking that there may of been a deal made here to keep his mouth shut hhhhhhmmmmmmm thus the in chamber sessions

something very fishy in the land of oz i mean italy

There's nothing fishy ... it's simply a different legal system than what is practiced in the US.

"The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding) consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent"

 

[otto]

Yes, ultimately it's the decision of the court, ie judge and jury. All I'm saying otherwise is the prosecutor could also have chosen to appeal that Rudy's sentence be increased by 6 years as is happening with AK and RS. Ultimately though it would be up to the court whether that gets imposed or not. As it stands, Rudy only faces 16 years because the prosecutor isn't fighting for more, but AK and RS could face more because Mignini wants more added for reasons that seem unfair to me.

Rudy's sentence could, by law, not exceed 30 years. The prosecutors could not appeal to have that sentence lengthened as it would contravene the law and most likely be laughed out of court. The prosecutors could oppose (in court) Rudy's application to have his sentence reduced ... which they most likely did ... and were unsucessful. His sentence was reduced.

Rudy's appeal was over and done with in 2009. Amanda and Raffaele have their appeal before them. So .... yes ... Rudy's final sentence, after appeal, is 16 years, and the prosecutors are no longer appealing that appeal decision (as the time for that has long passed). The appeal sentence of Amanda and Raffaele is yet to be determined.

There is nothing unfair. Rudy had a fast-track hearing (trial), a sentence, and an appeal. Amanda and Raffaele had a trial, and now they will have an appeal. Rudy's maximum sentence was 30 years for any crime punishable by life in prison, Amanda and Raffaele's maximum sentence for any crime punishable by life in prison is not limited to 30 years.

 

[otto]

Yes, we're on the same page as to why he had 8 years taken off. But according to the news reports the "apology" was part of that other reduction , not the 8 year (fast-track) reduction. The lawyer you quoted doesn't mention the "apology" because he seems to be only referring to the 8 year fast track reduction. The "apology" is cited as being a part of the jury's reasoning for the 6 year reduction.

What the lawyer says is:

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

... meaning ... Rudy's sentence was first reduced to 24 years to be "in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito". That is, all three are convicted of the same crime and, since they were all involved in murdering Meredith; all equally responsible, they are all treated fairly and equally and given equal sentences of 24 years.

The reduction from 30 years to 24 years has nothing to do with anything beyond ensuring that 3 people that commit a crime are all given the same, equal sentence.

 

[Allusonz]

There's nothing fishy ... it's simply a different legal system than what is practiced in the US.

"The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding) consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent"

having worked in the legal field for some time i totally understand what is being said here and what the bolded phrase means always have

 

[otto]

Not sure where you get this insinuation as I don't see anything in my post relating to what you just implied. All I asked was why you think Rudy's trial can't be appealed by the prosecutor, since your reasoning was that it was "according to law". I'm asking you to clarify or cite something to back that up. So far I'm unconvinced that the prosecutor could not have appealed his sentence to be greater than 16 years.

Yes, all this I get. What I don't get is why you think the prosecutor couldn't have appealed Rudy's sentence to have the 6 years added back on. The 6 years have nothing to do with his fast track trial.

The reason I think that Rudy's sentence of 30 years cannot be appealed by the prosecution is, per the links re Italian fast-track proceedings, because the maximum allowable sentence for fast track proceedings is 30 years. Rudy was given the maximum allowable sentence, so it could not be appealed to be, say, 35 years or 40 years or life.

I have cited the reference, but will repost the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure


To understand the reasons for not appealing the appeal decision, one would have to learn a lot more about Italian criminal code and trial proceedings, but I suspect that there were additional limitations, such as "Only when the defendant alone has appealed the judgement, the Court of Appeals cannot issue a more serious sentence" ... please let us know what you learn. I look forward to reading the linked citations.

 

[otto]

having worked in the legal field for some time i totally understand what is being said here and what the bolded phrase means always have

That's great! You, having worked in the legal field, and Nova, having 20+ years in the legal field, should have no difficulty clarifying the legal proceedings and decisions for us non-legal people. I have no experience in the legal field and have no difficulty understanding why a maximum allowable sentence was not appealed by the prosecution, why three people convicted of the same crime are given equal sentences, or why a sentence reduction of 1/3 is applied after, and not before, the final sentence is determined.

 

[Allusonz]

Nova is right... as unfathomable as it may seem, Rudy's apology had everything to do with his sentence reduction - notice the date the article you link to was written - before an explanation had been handed down.
By law and within a few months, Italian courts must give a written explanation for their rulings

From a more recent article: (BBM)

An appeals court today said it shaved 14 years off the sentence of a man involved in the murder of a British student Meredith Kercher because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise to her family.
​

SOURCE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...killers-apology-won-sentence-cut-1925868.html

Thanks for this Miley

Curious but interesting

 

[otto]

Thanks for this Miley

Curious but interesting

Any thoughts on why the Independent News article, dated March 23, 2010 states that "today ... shaved off the sentence", when in fact the appeal decision was made on Dec 22, 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder)? There seem to be some significant factual errors, such as date, in the below linked article.


"An appeals court today said it shaved 14 years off the sentence of a man involved in the murder of a British student Meredith Kercher because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise to her family. "
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Ref: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...killers-apology-won-sentence-cut-1925868.html

 

[trillian]

I actually agree with otto. I think they give the max upon trial (perhaps to always send a message), even fast track. Then the 1/3 reduction comes in the appeal and any additional reduction the court feels is appropriate. Seems like this is the process.

So at appeal, they took off 6yrs and then 30%. And now he is done.

Question:
Is it true that now that Rudy is done with appeals that he can be brought before the court to testify in the AK and RS appeals? I read it and think it would be interesting but not sure if I should believe it.

 

[otto]

I actually agree with otto. I think they give the max upon trial (perhaps to always send a message), even fast track. Then the 1/3 reduction comes in the appeal and any additional reduction the court feels is appropriate. Seems like this is the process.

So at appeal, they took off 6yrs and then 30%. And now he is done.

Question:
Is it true that now that Rudy is done with appeals that he can be brought before the court to testify in the AK and RS appeals? I read it and think it would be interesting but not sure if I should believe it.

If the 1/3 reduction was applied after the defendant received the maximum allowable sentence, and before the sentence could be reduced on appeal, that would be an advantage to the defendant. For example, if Rudy's sentence of 30 years had first been reduced by 1/3 to 20 years, and then further reduced by 6 years, his sentence would have been 14 years rather than 16 years ... a clear advantage to Rudy. By reducing the sentence by 1/3 after the final decision, the reduction reflects the true sentence, not the initial sentence prior to appeal ... and the reduction is 8 years, not 10.

Rudy's final appeal was heard in Dec 2010 and the 16 year sentence was upheld. Rudy was asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution during the trial of Knox and Sollecito, but asserted his right to remain silent. On appeal, the only points that will be reviewed are the knife, the bra clasp and the testimony of the homeless man. I don't think that Rudy can offer any testimony regarding these three points.

 

[Nova]

Rudy lived in Perugia, but Italian was not his first language. Meredith's friends were from the UK. Several of the witnesses were not native Italians. In what way was Amanda treated different from the other witnesses?

Obviously, at some point, she was deemed a suspect. Other than RG, the others were not. That is certainly a difference.

As for RG, he had lived in Italy for years, not a couple of months.

 

[otto]

Obviously, at some point, she was deemed a suspect. Other than RG, the others were not. That is certainly a difference.

As for RG, he had lived in Italy for years, not a couple of months.

At 1:30 AM on Nov 6, Amanda status was changed from that of witness to that of suspect, and in fact all questioning was stopped ... so ... at the point, where Amanda was deemed a suspect, there was no need for an interpretter as she was put in a jail cell by herself and was not asked any more questions.

Amanda and Raffaele were treated the same as other witnesses. Meredith's friends were questioned as witnesses presumably under that same circmstances as Amanda ... as they were certainly all at the police station for questioning at the same time immediately after the murder was discovered. Do you think that Meredith's friends were provided with an interpretter and then when Amanda was questioned, the interpretter was dismissed, or are you thinking that none of the English speaking witnesses had the benefit of an interpretter during questioning as a witness.

 

[Nova]

What the lawyer says is:

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

... meaning ... Rudy's sentence was first reduced to 24 years to be "in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito". That is, all three are convicted of the same crime and, since they were all involved in murdering Meredith; all equally responsible, they are all treated fairly and equally and given equal sentences of 24 years.

The reduction from 30 years to 24 years has nothing to do with anything beyond ensuring that 3 people that commit a crime are all given the same, equal sentence.

"would be in line" does not necessarily mean "was reduced to match." It may be the lawyer was merely defending the reduced sentence as not unreasonable. (I assume we are dealing with a translation, but if the English is unclear, we have no way of knowing whether the Italian was clearer.)

If this is the only evidence as to why RG's sentence went from 30 to 24 years, then that reduction remains a mystery.