There is a frightening silence about Silvio’s case in the official media, with the exception of very few but important interventions like the ones of De Benedetti, Giannino and Mingardi which were able to get through the prevailing Jacobinism of the editors….

We have to look beyond the “carcere preventivo” not because it is not a serious injury to liberty, but because it looks like a “fait accompli”.

This means preparing for the trial.

The procedure in Italy is frightening not just in terms of detention before trial but also for the tendency of never getting to a fair trial, by which I mean a trial by an independent jury.

Independent of whom? Of the prosecutors and the government (the sovereign).

With the fiction that “the government is us” (Obama) any abuse of power by the Government can be justified. I am not a criminal law expert in Italy, but I sincerely hope that there will be a “day in court” and a jury trial, which should result in full and complete acquittal.

It will take an awful lot of time an effort and vigilance by everyone.

Forza Silvio! We shall not give up our small efforts.

As an aside, when we read comparisons between Italy and the common law countries the main reference should not be to the current practice in the UK and the US, which is a far cry from a fair trial under liberty, but to the constitutional principles.

Perhaps it is good to quote some references about what a “trial by independent jury” means:

The Magna Carta was a great step forward in the control of tyrannical leaders. But its sole means of enforcement, the jury, was often met with hostility. By 1664 English juries were routinely being fined for acquitting defendants. Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit – and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell’s Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury.

Jurors continued to exercise their power of nullification in 18th-century England in the trials of defendants charged with sedition, and in mitigating death-penalty cases. In the American Colonies, jurors refused to enforce forfeitures under the English Navigation Acts. The Colonial jurors’ veto power prompted England to extend the jurisdiction of the non-jury admiralty courts in America beyond their ancient limits of sea-going vessels. Depriving “the defendant of the right to be tried by a jury which was almost certain not to convict him [became] . . . the most effective, and therefore most disliked” of all the methods used to enforce the acts of trade. (Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1938) XI, 110)

John Hancock, “the wealthy Massachusetts patriot and smuggler who as President of the Continental Congress affixed his familiar bold signature to the Declaration of Independence” was prosecuted via this admiralty jurisdiction in 1768 and fined £9,000 – triple the value of the goods aboard his sloop “Liberty” which had been previously forfeited. (U.S. v One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S 618 F2d 453 [1980])

John Adams eloquently argued the case, chastising Parliament for depriving Americans of their right to trial by jury. Adams later said of the juror, “it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

Quoted from The Fully Informed Jury Association

FIJA, P.O. Box 5570, Helena, MT 59604
Tel: (406) 442-7800. Web site: http://www.fija.org

Claudio Sordi