In a country which repeatedly elected a known criminal who escaped conviction through various shady means to the top post, it is hard to tell whether even the Supreme Court will bother with looking for truth. Additionally, according to Wikipedia,
The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence but can correct a lower court’s interpretation or application of the law.
so there is not nearly as much latitude in what the court can do, compared to SCOTUS. So, if the Supreme Court gets to hear the case, I’d give it 50⁄50 odds of the conviction being substantially upheld.
The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence but can correct a lower court’s interpretation or application of the law.
so there is not nearly as much latitude in what the court can do
...except that they already did completely overrule the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence when they canceled the acquittal last March. So, they could certainly do it again, in the opposite direction, if they were so inclined. (I’m not predicting they will be so inclined.)
In Italy, the “interpretation or application of the law” includes the reasoning about the evidence used by the lower court; this is the loophole they use to disagree with lower courts about the facts of the case when they feel like it.
The important question here is, can the supreme court say that the evidence does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt? Is that a matter of interpretation of the evidence, or a matter of the application of the law?
The important question here is, can the supreme court say that the evidence does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt?
Yes, they can. (But they probably won’t.)
Is that a matter of interpretation of the evidence, or a matter of the application of the law?
Trick question! In Italy, interpretation of the evidence is a matter of the application of the law, because the law specifies that the evidence has to be interpreted “logically”. See how that works? If they want to overturn a verdict, they simply say that the lower court’s motivation document was “illogical”; but if they don’t, they can hide behind “far be it for us to enter into the merits of the case, which is reserved to the lower courts”. It’s perfect!
In a country which repeatedly elected a known criminal who escaped conviction through various shady means to the top post, it is hard to tell whether even the Supreme Court will bother with looking for truth. Additionally, according to Wikipedia,
so there is not nearly as much latitude in what the court can do, compared to SCOTUS. So, if the Supreme Court gets to hear the case, I’d give it 50⁄50 odds of the conviction being substantially upheld.
...except that they already did completely overrule the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence when they canceled the acquittal last March. So, they could certainly do it again, in the opposite direction, if they were so inclined. (I’m not predicting they will be so inclined.)
In Italy, the “interpretation or application of the law” includes the reasoning about the evidence used by the lower court; this is the loophole they use to disagree with lower courts about the facts of the case when they feel like it.
blushes with embarrassment
The important question here is, can the supreme court say that the evidence does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt? Is that a matter of interpretation of the evidence, or a matter of the application of the law?
Yes, they can. (But they probably won’t.)
Trick question! In Italy, interpretation of the evidence is a matter of the application of the law, because the law specifies that the evidence has to be interpreted “logically”. See how that works? If they want to overturn a verdict, they simply say that the lower court’s motivation document was “illogical”; but if they don’t, they can hide behind “far be it for us to enter into the merits of the case, which is reserved to the lower courts”. It’s perfect!