A couple of interesting stories here and here. NY Times article here. Amanda’s reaction and a discussion of whether she will return to Italy for the trial here.
Blog Editor
Mark Godsey
Daniel P. & Judith L. Carmichael Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Director, Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Conviction; Director, Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence Project
Order Here
Contributing Editors
Justin Brooks
Professor, California Western School of Law; Director, California Innocence ProjectOrder his book Wrongful Convictions Cases & Materials 2d ed. here
Cheah Wui Ling
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Daniel Ehighalua
Nigerian Barrister
Jessica S. Henry
Associate Professor of Justice Studies, Montclair University
Carey D. Hoffman
Director of Digital Communications, Ohio Innocence Project@OIPCommunicati1
Shiyuan Huang
Associate Professor, Shandong University Law School; Visiting Scholar, University of Cincinnati College of Law
C Ronald Huff
Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and Sociology, University of California-Irvine
Phil Locke
Science and Technology Advisor, Ohio Innocence Project and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic
Dr. Carole McCartney
Reader in Law, Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria University
Nancy Petro
Author and Advocate Order her book False Justice here
Kana Sasakura
Professor, Faculty of Law, Konan University Innocence Project Japan
Dr. Robert Schehr
Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director, Arizona Innocence Project
Ulf Stridbeck
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Martin Yant
Author and Private Investigator Order his book Presumed Guilty here-
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
A curious criminal procedure .
Were such a case to occur in the STATE here , I would not be surprised to read that the reversal for another trial did NOT deny ”Amendment XIV Due Process”
DISCLAIMER :
I have yet to read the articles in the links , but base my belief on the different interpretations by SCOTUS over the decades . Justice Frankfurter , as I recall , opined in Griffin v. Illinois that a state need not provide any appeal from a criminal conviction .
Some have argued that executing a factually innocent defendant does not deny Due Process , if the execution follows a fair trial and fair appeal .
Off topic , but I believe that the killing of a ROGUE judge is not murder , ▬►PROVIDED◄▬ , the killing clearly meets ORC §2903.03 or ORC §2903.04
◙
ORC §2903.03 Voluntary manslaughter.
(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another …
2903.04 Involuntary manslaughter.
(A) No person shall cause the death of another … as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a felony.
(B) No person shall cause the death of another … as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor of any degree, a regulatory offense, or a minor misdemeanor other than a violation of any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor misdemeanor and other than a violation of an ordinance of a municipal corporation that, regardless of the penalty set by ordinance for the violation, is substantially equivalent to any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor misdemeanor.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Violation of division (A) of this section is a felony of the first degree. Violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third degree.
I am glad I had not a weapon when an Ashland County , Ohio judge sitting by assignment willfully concealed a narrative bill of exceptions from Ohio’s Fifth District ; I was standing within 3 feet of him , court was not in session and we were not near a courthouse at the time he informed me that the document had been removed to Ashland .
The temptation to permanently remove him from the judicial branch of government may have overwhelmed wisdom , even were a prosecutor to ask , “What took you so long ?”
I have been asked, “Why are they doing this?”
Why does any prosecutor stubbornly, adamantly, stupidly refuse to admit that they got it wrong? It HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
The prosecutor in this case, Mignini, is a certifiable whacko with a very questionable record.
PHIL LOCKE: I have been asked, “Why are they doing this?”
I respectfully suggest that they are “doing this” because there is no serious RISK:REWARD ratio to discourage such conduct, e.g., death, total disability (traumatic anoxia) , disbarment , permanent disqualification in the prosecutorial system ; etc.
When my father drove a truck carrying nitroglycerine in the 1930s, the constant threat of death worked well to motivate him to do his job as he ought.
Mel Brooks reportedly served as a corporal in North Africa , defusing land mines; I suggest the threat of death motivated him to do his job well .
In Ohio , a few prosecutors have lied as an officer of the court or while under oath with NO accountability .
I opine that when there is NO accountability , then there is little motivation to do what is right .
Terminate ALL personnel that monitor parking meters and write tickets for those who have exceeded their time , then watch how quickly and dramatically parking meter revenue disappears .
Pingback: Amanda Knox Interview on ABC Tonight in U.S at 10pm EST…. | Wrongful Convictions Blog
Brady’s comment is interesting but irrelevant. The defendant is guilty in this case, save a final procedural appeal. Locke’s question has an easy answer again: the prosecutors in this case are working on the new steps because the defendant Amanda Knox appealed. It must also be said that prosecutors in charge are different at each and every step as that is how it works, so we cannot argue any personal obsession (if you implied it, not sure about it). If AK had not appealed the case would have been over in 2009. In Italy higher courts have an obligations to hear appeals, if asked (there is one appeal on the merit of the case and one final appeal of procedure at Supreme Cassation Court) and Supreme Court must check all steps of the trial are conducted within the law. Significantly she is losing all her appeals in front of different judges and with different prosecutors. She won an intermediate appeal now cancelled (better, demolished) by Supreme Court as that appeal court wrote a manifestly illogical reasoning and broke the law by neglecting important evidence. The law in Italy (rather the Constitution of the country) says that nobody can be judged without a written logical reasoning explaining the ruling. That means there is no black box jury like in the US given verdicts are all explained in writing that implies the reasonable doubt principle and presumption of innocence are more important and protected than in the US. There is one appeal left for AK at Supreme Court which will deal again with procedural correctness of this trial in which she was convicted in first instance and in appeal for murdering Meredith Kercher. Any appeal or comment can only be made with refence to the trial, the sentence and its written reasoning. In the comments above I see no mention of such documents and trial just a generic belief in innocence which we do not find in the written documents. We find the opposite, overwhelming evidence of the guilt of multiple murderers one of these being AK. Though in a previous article you write trials should not be done on interest but in the appointed Courts. I find that a contradiction.
on internet but in the appointed Courts (correction ref previous comment)