Rosario, Michael Alberto F January 24, 2024

Constitutional Law II

Amanda Knox: A Legal Write-Up in the Lens of Constitutional Law

“Justice delayed is justice denied”, William Gladstone says; but a rushed and
inconclusive justice is as much as depriving someone of the justice they are entitled to.
A documentary-film entitled Amanda Knox is a documentary of court proceedings and
the due process that have been experienced by Amanda Knox herself, her boyfriend
Rafaele, and a guy named Guede for the gruesome and tragic murder of Amanda’s
roommate, Meredith. The documentary-film itself showed the steps in a legal process -
the trial and appeals, the quantum of evidence - and how every aspect of a criminal
proceeding, regardless of whether one is an accused or the complainant, due process
shall always be followed. In this paper, through the lens of Constitutional Law, the
following questions will be answered: what went right; what went wrong; and was justice
served.

In answering the question of what went wrong in Amanda’s case, or the legal
proceeding per se, the evidence presented before the court must be understood first.
First evidence is the result of forensic examination where they found the traces of
Amanda’s DNA in the knife’s handle, the proposed murder weapon, and Meredith’s
DNA in the blade of the same knife. Secondly, the recanted statement of Amanda and
Rafaele during the interrogation - which, according to their statement that the
prosecution did not refute, insofar as what is shown in the film, were extracted through
both physical and psychological abuse. Thirdly, the circumstantial evidence pointing to
what the prosecution thought of Amanda’s action. Now, during the first trial, both
Amanda and Rafaele were found guilty of the crime, while Guede was found guilty of
murder. Amanda appealed the decision of the court to the Court of Appeals, and was
exonerated of the crimes charged against her due to inconclusiveness of evidence.
According to the independent forensic analysts, Meredith’s DNA found at the blade of
the knife was so small that it must be contaminated during its examination - which the
forensic examiner corroborated, admitting that it was examined with numbers of
Meredith’s possession. This, in itself, is an embodiment of a due process that’s not fairly
given to the accused. It denied Amanda the right way to gather and examine the
evidence she fairly deserved. The second issue in this case was the violation of
Amanda’s privacy when her diary, a very personal possession, was leaked to the media
and to the world. It was wrong because whether or not a person is guilty, that same
person is still entitled to the fundamental human rights as defined by the United Nations
and the Hague Convention - assuming that Italy does not have the same provisions on
Bill of Rights as the Philippines. Her privacy, as a fundamental human right, shall not be
vastly violated for media clout and attention. The third issue in Amanda’s case is the
participation of the media in the entire legal and judicial proceeding. Yes, at least most
of the people would believe that the media has their right. And yes, there shall be a free
and independent press. However, it is not right to report one side of the story and paint
an image that will prejudice a person’s case. It is not right to have a trial by publicity,
because there is a court established for that matter. The fourth and last issue in this
case is how the interrogation went - there were no lawyers, there was abuse, and the
interrogators who showed no signs of objectiveness - they just saw what they wanted to
Rosario, Michael Alberto F January 24, 2024
Constitutional Law II

see and heard what they wanted to hear. What went wrong in this case is that Amanda
was denied the initial substantial due process she was entitled to, and her privacy, a
fundamental civil and civic right, was severely violated. Moving on, despite all these
mishaps and inappropriate administration of justice, there were right things done to
Amanda. While she was denied the initial due process due to media attention, logic
would dictate, resulting in putting pressure on the prosecution to just point fingers and
be blinded by their thoughts through disregarding substantial facts of the case. Amanda
has had multiple trials - the first trial, the appeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court
of Italy. She had her chance to prove that the prosecution had made a mistake - and
that her innocence was of absolute truth. It showed that a decision of the court may be
reversed when the evidence is clear and when there really is innocence insofar as the
accused is concerned. This moment shows how important the appellate jurisdiction of
courts is - because judges are human too, they make mistakes. The appellate court is
there to correct these mistakes and ensures that the due process is fairly executed.
Because due process is a fundamental human right. So, was there justice? Insofar as
the evidence suggests, there was justice. The gruesome murder of Meredith was given
justice - when the evidence showed and pointed to Guede, who was convicted of
murder. There was justice on Meredith because the person, whom evidence pointed
towards, was convicted and has served its sentence. Justice was also done to Amanda
and Rafaele. They were granted the due process they deserved. They, including
Gueda, were not punished for a crime they did not commit. Amanda and Rafaele were
acquitted of the crime they did not commit, and ultimately, their fundamental human,
civil, and civic rights were protected and enforced.

Every person has the right to the speedy disposition of their cases, but speedy
disposition of the same shall not compromise the justice other people deserve. The
prosecution cannot interpret evidence in the way they wanted it to see, because that
removes the objectivity of the legal proceeding. Every evidence shall be seen only
objectively. The fundamental human rights of every individual must be protected at all
times. This documentary-film showed the importance of due process, and how the court
and the officers of the law shall always adhere to the principles of due process and
human rights. No one shall be held on trial by publicity, because only the court can
decide on whether or not an accused is guilty of the charges against him/her. Ultimately,
an accused in a criminal offense shall never have to prove his/her innocence, it is the
prosecution’s job to prove otherwise. To end, an inconclusive administration of justice is
as much as justice denied.