How does a trial in absentia work if the defendant completely ignores the court? I don't just mean not showing up, but not at all. Does the court hire a lawyer to represent his interests and tell him to mount the best defense he can, or is it like in certain civil cases in the US where you get a judgement by default? I'm trying to figure out how you get something resembling a fair trial without having a defendant.
As for in absentia trials in Italy, a defendant has the right to completely ignore his trial- a trial that can only be celebrated if he has been fully informed of when, where and why it is being held. It's a defendant's sovereign choice not to participate. Only in certain case can he/she be conducted to trial by the forces of law.
Your comment on statute of limitations. The Berlusconi government did pass a law modifying it by cutting statutes of limitation for all crimes for which he and his cohorts could be remotely accused. This has made it procedurally impossible to try a large number of crimes within the time limit. The Berlusconi government made further vexative laws such as the need to inform a person he is under investigation in a derisively small time limit. Other laws passed include reducing the time that a state witness may formulate his testimony or putting severe limits on the length of investigations.
Berlusconi practically destroyed the efficiency of the judiciary branch. (Not that it was all that efficient in the first place).
There is however an absolute demand that defendants has gotten informed about the proceedings. So when avoiding the law (yes, statute of limitations clock ticks on) you do not avoid the court proceedings as much as you avoid getting served.
So I guess focus is on giving defendants the possibility of assisting in their own defense, and if they choose not to, well that is their loss.
The US is obstructing justice and has pre-emptively prejudiced the defendant´s case before hand by leaving the Italian side out of the full investigation. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.
No, that's the problem - Italy doesn't have a defendant - it has an arrest warrant out for the defendant. I really, really dislike this idea that somehow the state's burden is lessened if the defendant refuses to cooperate. If you're going to suggest that you don't need anybody presenting alternative theories and pointing out holes in the government's argument, why hold a trial at all? If the prosecutor thinks he is guilty, and he won't cooperate, skip the trial altogether.
The US is obstructing justice and has pre-emptively prejudiced the defendant´s case before hand by leaving the Italian side out of the full investigation.
Are you suggesting that the US is holding back exculpatory evidence of Lonzano's innocence? On the other hand if the evidence they have would hurt his case they're helping him. Think of it on individual terms - if I saw a person commit a murder and I refuse to testify in that person's trial I may be obstructing justice, but I'm certainly not hurting that person's chances of getting off. I'm only hurting him if he's innocent. So if you believe that the US government is hurting Lonzano's case, that presumes that he isn't guilty.
