Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Death Penalty

smooth · 05-01-2003, 11:56 PM

I think one of the misperceptions that leads people to think our appeals process can right wrongful convictions is that those people think appeals courts can or will review the judgement. They don't and can't do that. Appeals courts review whether judicial rules were violated or not. They can't (and won't) view new evidence, review whether a judge or jury correctly viewed the evidence, or anything of that nature. The presiding judge and jury are called the "fact finders". They are the ones who determine issues of fact--not appellate judges.

For example, say two witnesses take the stand. One lies and claims the defendant was indeed seen at the murder seen with a bloody knife. The other witness says that the defendant was definately *not* the person who was standing there. Once the jury decides who they want to believe their decision will *never* be overturned. Even if ten years later the first witness recants and evidence is produced that the D.A. paid him to present false testimony the higher courts won't and can't view that evidence. Now, the exeption in that case is that the current appeal (remember that appeals take years and there are multiple levels) can then incorporate that evidence as part of the defendant being denied due process (typically one of the main points in most all appeals) but *usually* the court will only view the evidence if it was alleged in the first complaint. If the attorney didn't file an original appeal or alledge that the first witness lied in the original appeal (remember, this would have been pure speculation at that point since the evidence didn't come to light until ten years later) then the defendent is most likely shit out of luck. The rare exception is that an attorney can file a habeas corpus and present the new evidence there--but the court doesn't have to hear the case and there are sticky procedural issues that then come into play (e.g., does the new evidence, in the totality of the circumstances, prove that the defendant was harmed). Of course, this assumes the public (state paid) attorney is still on the ball after ten years (instead of handling his or her avalanche of other impoverished clients or the rare *paying* client [three guesses as to who takes precedence in the que]) and that he or she actually objected to the testimony during the first case (one has the "preserve" the error on the record before the appellate court will review the proposed error).

Whew, that was long! Anyway, hopefully that imprecise and simplified summary will indicate to those who took the time to read it the insurmountable odds one has to overcome in order to "prove" his or her innocence in the unfortunate event of a wrongful guilty verdict. Now you might more clearly understand why you have heard of some people who still remain on death row even though DNA evidence has exonerated them (hint: the higher court either can't or won't review the "new" evidence).

05-01-2003, 11:56 PM	#39 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I think one of the misperceptions that leads people to think our appeals process can right wrongful convictions is that those people think appeals courts can or will review the judgement. They don't and can't do that. Appeals courts review whether judicial rules were violated or not. They can't (and won't) view new evidence, review whether a judge or jury correctly viewed the evidence, or anything of that nature. The presiding judge and jury are called the "fact finders". They are the ones who determine issues of fact--not appellate judges. For example, say two witnesses take the stand. One lies and claims the defendant was indeed seen at the murder seen with a bloody knife. The other witness says that the defendant was definately not the person who was standing there. Once the jury decides who they want to believe their decision will never be overturned. Even if ten years later the first witness recants and evidence is produced that the D.A. paid him to present false testimony the higher courts won't and can't view that evidence. Now, the exeption in that case is that the current appeal (remember that appeals take years and there are multiple levels) can then incorporate that evidence as part of the defendant being denied due process (typically one of the main points in most all appeals) but usually the court will only view the evidence if it was alleged in the first complaint. If the attorney didn't file an original appeal or alledge that the first witness lied in the original appeal (remember, this would have been pure speculation at that point since the evidence didn't come to light until ten years later) then the defendent is most likely shit out of luck. The rare exception is that an attorney can file a habeas corpus and present the new evidence there--but the court doesn't have to hear the case and there are sticky procedural issues that then come into play (e.g., does the new evidence, in the totality of the circumstances, prove that the defendant was harmed). Of course, this assumes the public (state paid) attorney is still on the ball after ten years (instead of handling his or her avalanche of other impoverished clients or the rare paying client [three guesses as to who takes precedence in the que]) and that he or she actually objected to the testimony during the first case (one has the "preserve" the error on the record before the appellate court will review the proposed error). Whew, that was long! Anyway, hopefully that imprecise and simplified summary will indicate to those who took the time to read it the insurmountable odds one has to overcome in order to "prove" his or her innocence in the unfortunate event of a wrongful guilty verdict. Now you might more clearly understand why you have heard of some people who still remain on death row even though DNA evidence has exonerated them (hint: the higher court either can't or won't review the "new" evidence).