Case Law On Criminal Appeals, Post-Conviction Reviews, And Retrials
1. Overview: Criminal Appeals, Post-Conviction Reviews, and Retrials
1.1 Criminal Appeals
Definition:
A criminal appeal is a process where a convicted person challenges a conviction or sentence in a higher court.
Purpose:
Correct errors of law or procedure.
Address miscarriage of justice.
Key Principles:
Right to appeal is often guaranteed by law (e.g., Indian Constitution Art. 136 for Supreme Court, 227 for High Court revisional jurisdiction).
Appeals can be against conviction, sentence, or both.
The appellate court can:
Uphold conviction.
Reduce sentence.
Acquit the accused.
Order retrial or remand.
1.2 Post-Conviction Review
Definition:
Legal procedures after a conviction is final to examine legality, fairness, or new evidence.
Examples:
Review petitions: Courts review their own judgment under procedural rules.
Clemency or pardon: Executive review (e.g., President or Governor in India).
Habeas corpus petitions: Challenging illegal detention.
Purpose:
Correct errors overlooked during appeal.
Introduce new evidence.
Ensure justice where original trial was flawed.
1.3 Retrials
Definition:
Re-conducting the trial after conviction is overturned or a procedural flaw is found.
When Allowed:
Original trial vitiated due to legal errors, corruption, bias, or procedural irregularities.
New evidence unavailable during the first trial.
Limitations:
Cannot be allowed if acquittal was absolute and protected under double jeopardy principle.
2. Case Laws on Criminal Appeals, Post-Conviction Reviews, and Retrials
Case 1: Marbury v. Madison (1803, U.S.) – Judicial Review (Foundational Principle)
Facts:
Landmark U.S. case establishing judicial review.
Significance to Criminal Appeals:
Although not a criminal case, it affirmed power of courts to review lower court decisions.
Forms the basis of appellate review in U.S. law.
Outcome:
Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional, creating precedent for criminal appellate review.
Legal Principle:
Appellate courts have the authority to examine legality and constitutional compliance of lower court actions.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003, India)
Facts:
Accused convicted in lower court for criminal negligence causing death in medical treatment.
Appeal filed in High Court.
Legal Issue:
Whether conviction should be upheld based on negligence evidence.
Outcome:
High Court allowed partial appeal; reduced sentence.
Significance:
Demonstrates criminal appeals as a mechanism to reassess evidence and sentencing, not necessarily to overturn conviction entirely.
Case 3: People v. Newberry (U.S., 1966) – Post-Conviction Relief
Facts:
Defendant convicted of murder; later discovered prosecutorial misconduct.
Legal Issue:
Can the conviction be reviewed after appeals are exhausted?
Outcome:
Court granted post-conviction relief; ordered retrial.
Significance:
Illustrates post-conviction review based on new evidence or procedural unfairness.
Case 4: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962, India)
Facts:
Nanavati, a naval officer, shot his wife’s lover.
Acquitted by jury trial, but prosecution appealed to High Court.
Legal Issue:
Correctness of jury acquittal and application of murder vs. culpable homicide.
Outcome:
High Court convicted him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Significance:
Classic example of criminal appeal altering verdict.
Highlights appellate review correcting errors in interpretation of law and facts.
Case 5: R v. T (2009, UK) – Retrial Allowed
Facts:
Defendant acquitted of sexual assault in original trial.
New forensic evidence emerged after acquittal.
Legal Issue:
Can a retrial occur after acquittal?
Outcome:
Court allowed retrial under exception to double jeopardy law because of compelling new evidence.
Significance:
Shows retrial can be permitted in rare cases where justice requires reconsideration.
Case 6: Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010, India)
Facts:
Accused convicted of murder.
Appeal filed citing misapplication of evidence and procedural lapses.
Legal Issue:
Whether appellate court should conduct full retrial or review only procedural errors.
Outcome:
Conviction overturned; case remanded for retrial with specific directions.
Significance:
Demonstrates distinction between appeal for error correction and retrial requiring new evidence or re-examination.
Case 7: Brady v. Maryland (1963, U.S.) – Post-Conviction Review
Facts:
Defendant convicted of murder; prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.
Outcome:
Supreme Court held withholding evidence violates due process.
Case remanded; conviction reversed.
Significance:
Landmark for post-conviction review based on suppression of evidence.
Ensures fairness in appeals and reviews.
3. Key Observations Across Cases
Criminal Appeals
Aim: Correct errors of law or fact.
May result in acquittal, sentence reduction, or remand.
Post-Conviction Review
Used for new evidence, procedural violations, or constitutional issues.
May lead to retrial, conviction modification, or acquittal.
Retrials
Permitted when original trial was flawed or new compelling evidence emerges.
Exception to double jeopardy exists in some jurisdictions (e.g., UK Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Global Patterns
India: Appeals in High Courts/Supreme Court; retrial rare but allowed if trial vitiated.
U.S.: Habeas corpus, Brady violations, post-conviction relief.
UK: Retrials allowed with compelling evidence; appeals focus on error of law.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Type | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | U.S. | Appellate Review | Established judicial review authority |
| State v. Praful Desai | India | Criminal Appeal | Reassessment of evidence and sentence |
| People v. Newberry | U.S. | Post-Conviction | Relief granted for prosecutorial misconduct |
| K.M. Nanavati v. Maharashtra | India | Appeal | Appellate court altered jury verdict |
| R v. T | UK | Retrial | Allowed with new forensic evidence |
| Ashok Kumar v. Haryana | India | Appeal & Retrial | Procedural lapse led to retrial |
| Brady v. Maryland | U.S. | Post-Conviction | Withholding evidence violated due process |
RELATED Blog
0 comments