Criminal Appeals And Appellate Precedent Studies
Criminal Appeals:
A criminal appeal is a process by which a convicted person (appellant) seeks a higher court’s review of a lower court’s decision, usually to challenge errors in the trial or legal procedure that might have affected the verdict or sentence.
Key Points About Criminal Appeals:
Grounds for appeal: Includes errors of law, misinterpretation of facts, procedural unfairness, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, and sentencing errors.
Purpose: To ensure justice, correct errors, and uphold the rule of law.
Appellate courts: Typically do not re-examine factual evidence but focus on legal principles and procedural fairness.
Outcome: Appeal can be allowed (conviction/sentence overturned or modified) or dismissed (upheld).
Appellate Precedent:
Appellate courts create precedents by their rulings, which lower courts and future cases must generally follow.
Stare decisis principle: Courts adhere to established precedents for consistency and predictability.
Higher appellate courts set binding precedents for lower courts.
Key Case Laws on Criminal Appeals and Appellate Precedent
1. R. v. Jogee (2016) – UK Supreme Court
Facts: Jogee was convicted under the principle of joint enterprise, where he was held liable for a murder committed by an accomplice.
Issue: Whether the law of joint enterprise had been correctly applied.
Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the previous legal standard, ruling that foresight alone is not sufficient for conviction; there must be intent or knowledge of the crime.
Significance: This case clarified the law on joint enterprise, showing how appellate courts can overturn precedent to correct legal errors.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Clarence Gideon was denied legal counsel during trial.
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment requires states to provide counsel to indigent defendants.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel is fundamental and applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Significance: Established a binding precedent mandating legal representation in criminal trials, widely influencing appeals involving right to counsel claims.
3. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Nanavati was convicted of murder; his appeal challenged the trial court’s assessment of evidence.
Issue: Whether the appellate court should re-evaluate facts or rely on the trial court’s findings.
Decision: The Supreme Court laid down the principle that appellate courts should generally defer to trial courts on factual findings unless there is a clear error.
Significance: Defined the standard of appellate review on factual issues, balancing finality with fairness.
4. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Although a civil case, this case established judicial review.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court has authority to invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution.
Decision: Established the principle of judicial review.
Significance: This precedent empowers appellate courts to review and overturn laws and rulings, foundational for criminal appeals and precedent.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Kashi Ram was acquitted by trial court, but the High Court convicted him on appeal.
Issue: Whether an appellate court can convict a person if the trial court acquitted him based on appreciation of evidence.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that the High Court has the power to convict on appeal after reappreciation of evidence.
Significance: Confirmed that appellate courts have broad powers to review evidence and substitute their own findings, especially on appeal from acquittal.
Summary
Criminal appeals review alleged errors in trials to ensure justice.
Appellate precedent guides courts, promoting legal consistency.
Courts follow stare decisis but can overturn precedent when justified (R. v. Jogee).
Appellate courts defer to trial courts on facts but can re-examine when necessary (Nanavati).
Landmark rulings establish fundamental rights impacting appeals (Gideon).
Appellate courts can convict even after acquittal on appeal (Kashi Ram).
RELATED Blog
0 comments