What's
Below:
A "not guilty" verdict on all charges normally ends
a criminal case. The prosecution cannot appeal once a
defendant has been acquitted of the originally charged
offenses and any additional offenses the judge may allow the
jury to consider.
A "guilty"
verdict, however, on some or all the charges, does not
necessarily mean the case is over. Defendants who think
they've been wrongfully convicted have a number of options.
- The defendant can
make a motion asking the trial judge to overturn the
jury's guilty verdict and enter a verdict of not guilty.
- A defendant can
move for a new trial -- that is, ask the judge to set
aside the jury's verdict, declare a mistrial and start
over.
- Defendants can
appeal (ask a higher court to reverse the conviction
because the jurors made a mistake).
What are the chances
that my conviction will be reversed?
Appeals judges generally
resist overruling trial court judgments and prefer to give
trial judges wide discretion in the conduct of trials. As many
appellate courts have said, defendants are not guaranteed
"perfect" trials. Normally an appellate court will
overturn a guilty verdict only if the trial court made an
error of law that significantly contributed to the outcome.
Put differently, an error by the trial judge will not lead to
a reversal of a conviction as long as the error can reasonably
be considered harmless. Not surprisingly, most errors are
deemed "harmless," and consequently few convictions
are reversed. However, some types of errors are so grievous
that they are presumed harmful, such as the use of a coerced
confession in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Sentences are a
different matter. When the trial judge is given discretion
over the sentence, the appellate court will rarely interfere.
However, if the law requires a particular sentence and the
judge gets it wrong, the appellate court will usually send the
case back for resentencing.
What is a writ?
The word
"writ" traces its roots to English common law. In
Old English, writ means a letter, often written by an
attorney. Writ was the name for an action in the courts. There
were different kinds of writs for different actions -- writs
to recover land or personal property, to enforce judgments, to
seek damages for broken contracts. Most of the common law
writs have been abolished and replaced by the civil actions we
know today.
In another sense, the
word writ meant, and still means, an order. For example, an
"original writ" in old England was a letter from the
king to the local sheriff ordering someone who committed a
wrong to either make repairs to the person wronged or appear
in court to face formal accusations. In this context, the
original writ is most like our "summons" ordering a
party to appear in court.
In most modern
American jurisdictions, a "writ" is an order from a
higher court to a lower court or to a government official such
as a prison warden. Defendants may seek several types of writs
from appellate judges directed at the trial court or at a
lower appellate court. (Many states have two levels of
appellate courts -- an intermediate appellate court and the
state Supreme Court.) This section merely outlines common
writs. Writs, like appeals, are complex and involve picky
details. Defendants facing situations where they may be
entitled to take a writ should consult counsel.
What's the
difference between a writ and an appeal?
Writs usually are
considered to be extraordinary remedies, meaning they are
permitted only when the defendant has no other adequate
remedy, such as an appeal. In other words, a defendant may
take a writ to contest a point that the defendant is not
entitled to raise on appeal. As a general rule, this applies
to issues that are not apparent in the record of the case
itself (such as when an attorney fails to investigate a
possible defense).
Any one of the
following reasons, for example, may prohibit an appeal (and
justify a writ):
- The defense did
not lodge a timely objection at the time of the alleged
injustice (but should have).
- A final judgment
has not yet been entered in the trial court, but the party
seeking the writ needs relief at once to prevent an
injustice or unnecessary expense.
- The matter is
urgent. (Writs are heard more quickly than appeals, so
defendants who feel wronged by actions of the trial judge
may need to take a writ to obtain an early review by a
higher court.)
- The defendant has
already lodged an unsuccessful appeal (defendants may file
multiple writs but the right to appeal is limited to one).
But filing a writ that simply mimics an unsuccessful
appeal is a frivolous writ and will be dismissed
immediately.
What is a writ of
habeas corpus?
Defendants who want to
challenge the legality of their imprisonment -- or the
conditions in which they are being imprisoned -- may seek help
from a court by filing an application for what is known as a
"writ of habeas corpus.
A writ of habeas
corpus (literally to "produce the body") is a court
order to a person (prison warden) or agency (institution)
holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned
individual to the court issuing the order. Many state
constitutions provide for writs of habeas corpus, as does the
United States Constitution that specifically forbids the
government from suspending writ proceedings except in
extraordinary times -- such as war.
Known as "the
Great Writ," habeas corpus gives citizens the power to
get help from courts to keep government and any other
institutions that may imprison people in check. In many
countries, police and military personnel, for example, may
take people and lock them up for months -- even years --
without charging them, and those imprisoned have no avenue, no
legal channel, by which to protest or challenge the
imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus gives jailed suspects
the right to ask an appellate judge to set them free or order
an end to improper jail conditions, and thereby ensures that
people in this country will not be held for long times in
prison in violation of their rights. Of course, the right to
ask for relief is not the same as the right to get relief;
courts are very stingy with their writs.
| Potential
Post-conviction Remedies |
|
As
discussed in this article, convicted
defendants can take a number of steps to
challenge guilty verdicts and/or to correct
violations of constitutional rights,
including motions, appeals and writs. The
following list illustrates these steps. A
defendant who loses at one may go on to the
next step, all the way down the list (up the
legal chain) in a process that can take many
years -- especially for serious felonies
such as death penalty cases.
This
list is merely an illustration of possible
post-conviction proceedings -- some of which
may only be used in certain cases. Also,
defendants usually must first have
unsuccessfully sought relief through the
available state remedies before they will be
allowed to seek relief in federal courts.
For these reasons and because of the
complexities of these proceedings and what
is at stake (liberty or life), defendants
should consult counsel to determine which
remedies are available to them.
- Motion
for Acquittal. A request that the
judge decide that there is not enough
evidence to convict the defendant.
Depending on whether the trial is before
a judge or jury and depending on court
rules, this motion may be made either
after the prosecution presents its
evidence or after all the evidence is
presented.
- Motion
for a New Trial. Request that trial
judge declare a mistrial and grant a new
trial.
- Appeal
to State Appellate Court. Contends
that trial judge made some legal error.
- Petition
for Rehearing to State Appeals Court.
Requests that appeals court judges
change their own decision.
- State
Supreme Court Appeal. Requests that
highest court in the state review and
overturn the decision of the mid-level
appeals court.
- U.S.
Supreme Court Appeal. Requests that
highest court in the nation intervene to
correct an error on the part of the
state courts that violated the U.S.
Constitution.
- State
Court Habeas Corpus Petitions.
Requests that the state appeals courts
order the jail or prison holding the
defendant to release the defendant upon
a showing that the defendant is being
held in violation of some state law or
constitutional right.
- Federal
Habeas Corpus Petition to District
Court. Requests the federal trial
court to order the jail or prison
holding the defendant to release the
defendant because the defendant is being
held in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
- Appeal
of Federal Habeas Corpus Petition to
Circuit Court. Requests the
mid-level federal court to review the
federal trial court's decision denying
the writ.
- Appeal
of Federal Habeas Corpus Petition to
U.S. Supreme Court. Requests the
highest court in the land to review the
mid-level federal court's decision
denying the writ.
|
|
|
