Italy appeals court upholds conviction of 2 Americans in death of policeman but reduces sentences

Finnegan Lee Elder, left, and Gabriel Natale Hjorth, sit before the reading of the judgment at the end of a hearing for the appeals trial in which they are facing murder charges for killing Italian Carabinieri paramilitary police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, in Rome, on Jul. 3, 2024. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 03 July 2024
Follow

Italy appeals court upholds conviction of 2 Americans in death of policeman but reduces sentences

  • The new verdict drew acceptance from the men’s families and disappointment from the officer’s widow
  • Teenagers at the time of the slaying, the former schoolmates from the San Francisco Bay area had met up in Rome to spend a few days vacationing

ROME: An Italian appeals court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of two American men in the slaying of an Italian plainclothes police officer during a botched sting operation but significantly reduced their sentences.
The new verdict, ordered after Italy’s highest court threw out the original convictions, drew acceptance from the men’s families and disappointment from the officer’s widow.
Finnegan Lee Elder and Gabriel Natale-Hjorth had been found guilty in the July 2019 slaying of Carabinieri Vice Brig. Mario Cerciello Rega, and after the first trial, were both sentenced to life in prison, Italy’s harshest penalty.
Those sentences were reduced on appeal before Italy’s highest Cassation Court last year ordered a new trial altogether. On Wednesday, the appeals court convicted Finnegan and sentenced him to 15 years and 2 months in prison; it sentenced Natale-Hjorth to 11 years and four months, along with an 800 euro ($863) fine.
“I don’t think we could ask for a reasonable, better decision today,” said Ethan Elder, Finnegan Lee Elder’s father.
Teenagers at the time of the slaying, the former schoolmates from the San Francisco Bay area had met up in Rome to spend a few days vacationing. The fatal confrontation took place after they arranged to meet a small-time drug dealer, who turned out to have been a police informant, to recover money lost in a bad drug deal. Instead, they were confronted by two officers.
Cerciello Riga was stabbed 11 times with a knife brought from the hotel room.
In ordering the retrial, the Cassation Court said it hadn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, with limited Italian language skills, had understood that they were dealing with Italian police officers when they went to meet the alleged drug dealer.
The defense had argued that the defendants didn’t know they were facing law enforcement when the attack happened, an argument repeated during the new trial.
Prosecutor Bruno Giangiacomo said his office would wait to read the court’s written reasonings before deciding on a possible appeal to the Cassation. In Italy, both defendants and prosecutors can appeal at every level of judgment.
“Both aggravating factors that were increasing the penalty were excluded,” Giangiacomo said after the verdict. “This could be a delicate point where we can think about an appeal to the Cassation court.” Prosecutors had asked that Finnegan be sentenced to 23 years and nine months and Natale-Hjorth to 23 years.
Rosa Maria Esilio, the widow of Cerciello Rega, was “devastated” by the verdict, said her lawyer Massimo Ferrandino.
“For five years she has been carrying a huge pain. She was the one who closed the eyes of her husband in the morgue. You can imagine her pain today too,” he said.
The killing of the officer in the storied Carabinieri paramilitary police corps shocked Italy, and the 35-year-old Cerciello Rega was mourned as a national hero.
Prosecutors alleged Elder stabbed Cerciello Rega with a knife that he brought with him on his trip to Europe and that Natale-Hjorth helped him hide in their hotel room. Under Italian law, an accomplice in an alleged murder can also be charged with murder without carrying out the slaying.
But lawyer Francesco Petrelli, who represented Natale-Hjorth, said the appeals court clearly recognized that there was a different level of participation by his client.
“There was a reduction, mainly of the responsibility,” he said, adding that “there was a shift from intentional malice to negligence.”
Prosecutors contend that the young Americans concocted a plot involving a stolen bag and cellphone after their failed attempt to buy cocaine with 80 euros ($96) in Rome’s Trastevere nightlife district. Natale-Hjorth and Elder testified they had paid for the cocaine but didn’t receive it.
In a statement released by lawyers after the new verdicts, Leah Elder, Finnegan Elder’s mother, insisted that her son was prepared to take responsibility for his actions and move on.
“This trial is unfortunately connected to the tragedy of a person’s death, a grave fact that has marked and will forever mark the lives of all the families involved,” she said. “Bringing out the truth of the facts would help Finnegan take full responsibility for the pain he caused with his tragic reaction. I hope that, even as he pays for his mistake, he will also open up to hope for the future.”


Trump sues the BBC for defamation over editing of January 6 speech, seeks up to $10 billion in damages

Updated 16 December 2025
Follow

Trump sues the BBC for defamation over editing of January 6 speech, seeks up to $10 billion in damages

  • A BBC spokesperson told Reuters earlier on Monday that it had “no further contact from President Trump’s lawyers at this point
  • The BBC is funded through a mandatory license fee on all TV viewers, which UK lawyers say could make any payout to Trump politically fraught

WASHING: President Donald Trump sued the BBC on Monday for defamation over edited clips of a speech that made it appear he directed supporters to storm the US Capitol, opening an international front in his fight against media coverage he deems untrue or unfair. Trump accused Britain’s publicly owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021 speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol and another where he said “fight like hell.” It omitted a section in which he called for peaceful protest.
Trump’s lawsuit alleges the BBC defamed him and violated a Florida law that bars deceptive and unfair trade practices. He is seeking $5 billion in damages for each of the lawsuit’s two counts. The BBC has apologized to Trump, admitted an error of judgment and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action. But it has said there is no legal basis to sue.
Trump, in his lawsuit filed Monday in Miami federal court, said the BBC despite its apology “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses.”
The BBC is funded through a mandatory license fee on all TV viewers, which UK lawyers say could make any payout to Trump politically fraught.
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement the BBC “has a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda.”
A BBC spokesperson told Reuters earlier on Monday that it had “no further contact from President Trump’s lawyers at this point. Our position remains the same.” The broadcaster did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed.

CRISIS LED TO RESIGNATIONS
Facing one of the biggest crises in its 103-year history, the BBC has said it has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary on any of its platforms.
The dispute over the clip, featured on the BBC’s “Panorama” documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, sparked a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.
Trump’s lawyers say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.
The documentary drew scrutiny after the leak of a BBC memo by an external standards adviser that raised concerns about how it was edited, part of a wider investigation of political bias at the publicly funded broadcaster.
The documentary was not broadcast in the United States.
Trump may have sued in the US because defamation claims in Britain must be brought within a year of publication, a window that has closed for the “Panorama” episode.
To overcome the US Constitution’s legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove not only that the edit was false and defamatory but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.
The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the program did not damage Trump’s reputation.
Other media have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.
Trump has filed lawsuits against the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all three of which have denied wrongdoing. The attack on the US Capitol in January 2021 was aimed at blocking Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential win over Trump in the 2020 US election.