I taught at FSU for a number of years in the School of
Criminology. No matter what course I was
teaching I always spent the first day asking the students questions and
allowing them to question me. It always
surprised me the misperceptions of the criminal justice system. Having worked in the system, these
misperceptions are common even among those who should know better. Please don’t take this as LEO bashing. It’s not.
I have many friends and former students in law enforcement and believe
they have a very hard job (especially the correctional officers – doing time on
the job). Here are a few myths that I have
heard many times. Please keep in mind
that these are generally true statements and I am sure there are exceptions to
each of my myths below because judges can basically do what they want until a
higher court tells them otherwise. Sometimes that doesn’t even stop them…
1. Everyone has a right to a trial.
Well duh. Everyone seems to know
that an accused person has a right to a trial, but most don’t realize they only
have a RIGHT to ONE trial.
I will cover double jeopardy in a minute, but most seem to think that
appeals are a form of a trial. They are
not. There is no NEW evidence submitted
in an appeals court and these courts do not have juries. The only things appellate courts decide are
issues of law. Furthermore, unless the accused preserves
their right to appeal in the trial, they can’t appeal. What does it mean to preserve the issue? It means the person’s attorney better
understand not only case law, but appealable ‘issues.’ An issue is a matter of law that is in
question (see above – issues of law only, this does include procedures). Usually attorney must object to the error
when it occurs. Since Constitutional
claims are greater than other claims, the appellate courts will sometimes be
more lenient to review the issue even if it was not preserved in the trial court’s
record. Also, appeals courts will only
decide issues that ‘matter’ or errors that made a difference in the outcome at
trial. I have read many cases where the appeals
court says that there was an error by the trial court, but that it was a ‘harmless’
error and did not affect the outcome obtained by the defendant. An issue ‘matters’ when: 1. The alleged violation clearly deprives the
defendant a fair trial. 2. There is sufficient record to review the
alleged violation.
Each system has specific rules that dictate how appeals are begun. These vary across jurisdiction. Speaking of jurisdiction, another common
misconception is that there is a single jurisdiction. This is not the case. Courts hear cases dependent on location of
crime/event (where it happened), location of plaintiff (where those involved
live), type of event (civil vs. criminal), size of event (how much was taken?),
who files (state vs. individual), and specific law violated (can be federal or
state). Trial courts often put a time
limit on appeals. Sometimes as short as
three days and sometimes ranging up to months.
In the federal criminal court system, the defendant must file a notice
of appeal within 10 days of the judgment/order or the right to appeal is
forfeited.
A court’s ability to hold a trial depends also on its original
jurisdiction. Mostly the Supreme Court
is a court of appeal, but it can hear some cases as a trial court. These cases are generally two states (or a
state and the federal government) asking the court to decide an issue. The Supreme Court does not have original
jurisdiction for criminal courts. Interestingly,
the Supreme Court will not offer opinions on hypothetical cases. Meaning when George Washington asked John Jay
(first Chief Justice) whether a foreign policy was legal, John Jay said that
the Supreme Court is limited to the cases in front of it. That makes sense. Think about it. How many cases hinge on one piece of evidence
that changes the outcome? For example,
did Zimmerman continue following Trayvon after he was advised against it by the
operator? That one answer can mean all
the difference for the outcome in that case.
Also, to appeal a person has to have ‘standing.’ Standing basically means that the outcome of
the trial will directly affect the person filing the appeal. The appellate court can only hear issues of
law. The appeals courts will not,
cannot, decide issues of fact. They
accept the facts as found by the trial court.
The only thing the appellate court can decide is whether the lower court
followed the procedures they were supposed to.
This brings us to what an appellate court can do.
It can reverse a decision by a lower court judge. Most defendants hope for this or they wouldn’t
file. This means the appellate court
finds the lower court wrong in its application of the law or procedure and
disregards the lower courts order or judgment.
It can reverse and remand, which means the appellate court, finds that
the lower court made a significant error and tells them to correct the error
and try again. The most common thing an
appellate court does is called a PCA, or per curiam affirmed. Appealing probably won’t matter much
anyway. Reversals of lower court
decisions by appellate courts are not as common as you’d think. A 2005 study in the Florida State University
Law Review showed that 87-99% of federal guilty verdicts are upheld on
appeal. A study of state courts found that
between 70-80% guilty verdicts were upheld on appeal.
Tomorrow
– when you may be subject to double jeopardy.