15 3564

kmunoz12

Chpater_15.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >15 3564

America’s Courts and the Criminal

Justice System, 13th Edition

Chapter 15 Appellate and

Habeas Corpus

Review

Learning Objectives (1 of 3)

1. Explain how appeals and appellate processes differ

from trials and trial processes.

2. Describe the two primary functions of appeals.

3. Explain how Double Jeopardy limits appeals by the

prosecution in criminal cases.

4. Define the contemporaneous objection rule and

explain its impact on appeals.

5. Differentiate between mandatory and discretionary

appellate jurisdiction.

Learning Objectives (2 of 3)

6. Identify the different appellate standards of review

and evaluate their impact on the criminal appeals.

7. Describe the six customary phases in the appeals

process.

8. Compare and contrast plain error, reversible error,

and harmless error.

9. Analyze the reasons why most criminal appeals

result in convictions being affirmed.

Learning Objectives (3 of 3)

10. Compare and contrast appeals and post conviction

review processes.

11. Identify the leading causes of wrongful convictions.

12. Analyze how state courts of last resort and the

U.S. Supreme Court exercise their discretion to

set justice policy.

Nature of the Appellate Process

• House v. Bell (2006)

• Appellate courts created because “several heads are

better than one” when examining legal questions

• The purposes of appeal

– Error correction

– Policy formulation

Thinking Point: Roe v. Wade

• Review the case of Roe v. Wade.

– What was the case?

– Why did it need to be reviewed?

– What did our society gain from this review?

– Do you believe that an issue such as this should have

been reviewed by several people, or left to its original

jurisdiction?

– What benefits are there to having several people

review this case?

– What policy was put in place by this case review?

Thinking Point: Sandra Day O’Connor

• Discuss cases that Sandra Day O’Connor supported.

– Discuss the impact she has had on cases

within the Supreme Court.

– Who replaced her?

– Does that person follow the principles that

O’Connor did? Explain how.

– What major cases did she review?

Scope of Appellate Review (1 of 2)

• Losing party has the right to one appeal

• No longer considered innocent

• No appeal for prosecutors in a finding of “not guilty”

– Double jeopardy

• Discretionary except in death penalty cases

• Interlocutory orders

Scope of Appellate Review (2 of 2)

• Contemporaneous objection rule

• Losing party may appeal only from a final

judgment of the lower court

• Appeals are restricted to questions of law

• Confined to issues properly raised in court

• Limited to findings of guilt

Limitations on the

Right to Appellate Review

• Mandatory appellate jurisdiction

• Discretionary appellate jurisdiction

• Appellate standards of review

Standard of Appellate

Review in Criminal Cases

• From least to most deferential

– Questions of law

– Mixed questions of law and fact

– Questions of fact decided by a judge

– Questions of fact decided by a jury

– Discretionary decisions by a judge

Questions of Law

• Standard of review: De novo (anew)

• Level of deference: None

• Test: Plenary review of a legal issue for a second

time with no deference to prior decision

• Examples

– Whether a judge erred in interpreting a statute

– Whether hearsay evidence was properly admitted

or excluded

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact

• Standard of review: Mixture of de novo and clear error

• Level of deference: Moderate

• Test: Underlying factual findings are given substantial

deference (reviewed for clear error), but the legal

consequences of those facts are reviewed de novo.

• Examples

– Whether a suspect was subjected to “custodial

interrogation”

– Whether a defendant knowingly, intelligently,

and voluntarily waived a constitutional right

Questions of Fact Decided by a Judge

• Standard of review: Clear error

• Level of deference: High

• Test: Trial court’s factual findings are to be upheld

unless they are so clearly erroneous that they have

no support in the record.

• Examples

– Whether a criminal defendant is competent to

stand trial

– Whether a criminal defendant is guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt (in a bench trial)

Questions of Fact Decided by a Jury

• Standard of review: Reasonableness/substantial

evidence

• Level of deference: High

• Test: Jury’s decision is upheld if it is reasonable in

light of the evidence in the record; support for the

jury’s conclusion is adequate.

• Examples

– Whether a criminal defendant is guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt

– Whether a defendant has proven his/her insanity

by clear and convincing evidence

Discretionary Decisions by a Judge

• Standard of review: Abuse of discretion

• Level of deference: Very high

• Test: Trial court’s decision will be upheld unless

arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unfair in light of

any reasonable justification under the circumstances.

• Examples

– Whether a judge abused his/her discretion when

denying a continuance, limiting the scope of cross-

examination, or refusing to dismiss a juror for cause

Appellate Court Procedures (1 of 3)

• Notice of appeal

– Usually filed in 10, 30, or 60 days

– Writ of certiorari

– Petitioner

• Appellate court record

– Materials that advance to the appellate court

• Appellate briefs

– Written argument (appellee/respondent)

• Oral argument

– Face-to-face contact between judges and lawyers

Appellate Court Procedures (2 of 3)

• Written Opinion

– Summarizes the facts of the cases and discusses

the legal issues raised on appeal

– Dissenting opinion

▪ Explains why they believe their fellow judges reached

the wrong conclusions

– Concurring opinion

▪ Judges agree with the opinion and want to emphasize

certain points

– Plurality opinion

▪ Limited or no precedential value because there is no

majority decision

Appellate Court Procedures (3 of 3)

• Disposition

– Affirmed

– Modify

– Reversed

– Reversed and remanded

– Remanded

– Reversible vs. harmless error

▪ Plain

▪ Reversible

▪ Harmless

• Rising caseloads and expedited appeals

Criminal Appeals

• Law on the books: Expanded opportunity to appeal

criminal convictions

– Economically impoverished defendants cannot

be barred from effective appellate review.

• Law in action: Defendants rarely win on appeal

– Atypical of crimes prosecuted in trial courts

– Routine, seldom raise meritorious issues

– No reversible error

– Defendants convicted or non-violent offenses versus

defendants convicted or violent offenses

Distribution of Types of Criminal Appeals

in the Federal Appellate Courts (2013)

Postconviction Review

• Collateral attacks

• May be filed only by those in custody

• May only raise constitutional defects

• Broader than appeals

• Habeas corpus

– Judicial expansion to prisoners

▪ Most common

▪ The “great writ”

▪ Congress restricts this process

How Postconviction Remedies

Differ from Appeals

• Collateral attacks

• May be filed only by those actually in prison

• May raise only constitutional defects, not

technical ones

• May be somewhat broader than appeals

– Can bring up issues not raised at trial

– Assert constitutional protections raised since trial

– Contest conditions of confinement

– Unlimited in number

Changes in Postconviction Review

• Judicial expansion and contraction of habeas access

for state prisoners

• Congress greatly restricts habeas access in 1966

Case Close-Up: House v. Bell

• Federal Court scrutiny of state death row inmates

– Carolyn Muncey disappeared, and her body was

found in the woods the next day.

• House, convicted sex offender, was arrested for

the crime

– Circumstantial evidence defense

• Habeas corpus case regarding DNA

– Supreme Court dealt with post-conviction appeals

based on DNA testing (not been done before).

Courts, Controversy, and

the Administration of Justice

• Should federal courthouse doors be closed to state

prisoners?

– Should the federal courthouse doors be reopened to

state prisoners, particularly those on death row, to

ensure that justice is not short-circuited?

– Or should the federal courthouse doors remain as they

are now, with only one federal review (unless the case

presents an extraordinary issue)?

– Where should the line be drawn between the interests of

justice (ensuring that only the truly guilty are executed)

and the need for finality (many of the habeas petitions

raise issues that are very unlikely to succeed)?

Habeas Corpus for Federal Prisoners

• May seek relief if:

– Sentence imposed violates constitution or state laws

– Court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence

– Sentence imposed was excess to maximum allowed

– Sentence is “otherwise subject collateral attack”

Wrongful Convictions

• How many wrongful convictions are there?

– DNA exonerations: over 349 inmates since 1989

– Other exonerations: 149 in 2016 alone

• Why do wrongful convictions occur?

– Mistaken eyewitness identification

– Improper forensic science

– False confessions

– Unreliable informants

– Tunnel vision and misconduct by justice professionals

– Inadequate defense representation

Reducing Wrongful Convictions

• Policy recommendations include

– Exclude or limit use of unreliable forensic techniques

– Admit expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness

identifications

– Discipline attorneys who engage in misconduct

– Exclude uncorroborated jailhouse informant testimony

– Increase awareness of how causes of wrongful

conviction interact

State Courts of Last Resort

• Law on the books: State high courts and

discretionary dockets

– Some states have no intermediate courts of appeal.

– 40 states and the District of Columbia have

intermediate courts of appeal, freeing the state

supreme court to deal with policy questions.

Thinking Point: Local Appeals

• Discuss some current cases within your hometown.

– What subject areas do they cover to be appealed?

– What cases do you believe speak for society?

– Do you believe in the appellate process? If not, why not?

If so, to what extent?

State Supreme Courts

• Law in action: State high courts as policymakers

– Applications of U.S. Supreme Court decisions

– Interpretations of state constitutional provisions

– New judicial federalism

• Law in controversy: State high courts and death

penalty cases

– Pronounced differences in handling death penalty

cases from state to state

▪ States with competitive judicial elections, more likely

to uphold death sentences

The U.S. Supreme Court

and Criminal Justice Policy

• The Warren Court (1953-1969)

– Major developments in civil liberties

• The Burger Court (1969–1986)

– More conservative, but only modest reaction

to Warren Court

• The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)

– Pragmatic but conservative

• The Roberts Court (2005–)

– More conservative

The Supreme Court in Broad Perspective

• The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court swing

back and forth much like a pendulum

– These swings reflect major political movements

in the nation.

– Public opinion affects the justices’ lives and may

serve to curb them when they threaten to go too

far or too fast in their rulings.