Criminal Appeals And Reversal Precedents
Criminal Appeals and Reversal Precedents
What Is a Criminal Appeal?
A criminal appeal is a legal process where a party (usually the convicted person) asks a higher court to review and change the decision of a lower court due to alleged errors in law, procedure, or evaluation of evidence.
What Are Reversal Precedents?
A reversal precedent occurs when an appellate court overturns a previous decision—either from a lower court in the same case or a previously established legal principle. Such reversals often have a broad impact, setting new legal standards or correcting injustices.
Grounds for Reversal in Criminal Appeals:
Misapplication of law
Violation of fundamental rights
Improper admission/rejection of evidence
Miscarriage of justice
Errors in jury instruction or legal procedure
Landmark Case Laws on Criminal Appeals and Reversal Precedents
1. R. v. Jogee (2016) – UK Supreme Court
Facts: Jogee was convicted of murder under the doctrine of joint enterprise, which held accomplices liable if they foresaw the possibility of the crime.
Legal Issue: Whether mere foresight of a crime (without intent) is sufficient for conviction under joint enterprise.
Decision: The UK Supreme Court reversed the long-standing precedent that foresight equaled intent.
Significance: Overturned decades of precedent and held that intent, not just foresight, is necessary. It opened the door for appeals by many previously convicted under the old doctrine.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Clarence Gideon was denied the right to a lawyer in a Florida court and convicted.
Legal Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state courts.
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the prior precedent set by Betts v. Brady (1942), and ruled that states must provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in all serious criminal cases.
Significance: Created a massive shift in U.S. criminal procedure, establishing the right to legal representation as a constitutional guarantee, enforceable in both federal and state courts.
3. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Nanavati, a naval officer, shot his wife's lover. He was initially acquitted by the jury.
Legal Issue: Whether the jury’s verdict was perverse and whether the High Court could reverse it.
Decision: The Bombay High Court reversed the jury's acquittal, and the Supreme Court upheld this reversal.
Significance: This case marked the end of the jury system in India and reinforced that appellate courts can override lower decisions if there's a miscarriage of justice.
4. State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The trial court acquitted the accused in a murder case.
Legal Issue: Whether the High Court can reverse an acquittal based on evidence reevaluation.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s power to reverse an acquittal, holding that if the trial court ignored compelling evidence, the appellate court is duty-bound to intervene.
Significance: Reinforced that appellate courts can reverse acquittals when lower courts fail to appreciate evidence properly, ensuring justice is not compromised.
5. Terry v. Ohio (1968) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Terry was stopped and searched by police without a warrant. He appealed, claiming a Fourth Amendment violation.
Legal Issue: Was the stop-and-frisk constitutional without probable cause?
Decision: Although not a reversal of a conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the prior understanding of searches, establishing the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
Significance: This case reshaped criminal procedural law regarding police searches and impacted numerous appeals involving illegal searches.
Summary of Principles from the Cases:
| Case | Key Precedent Reversed | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| R. v. Jogee | Joint enterprise liability based on foresight | Required proof of intent for accomplice liability |
| Gideon v. Wainwright | Betts v. Brady (right to counsel) | Guaranteed legal counsel in all felony cases |
| Nanavati | Jury’s acquittal | Allowed reversal of jury verdict; ended jury trials in India |
| Krishna Gopal | Acquittal at trial | Strengthened appellate power to reverse unjust acquittals |
| Terry v. Ohio | Old standards of police search | Created "reasonable suspicion" rule for stop-and-frisk |
Conclusion
Criminal appeals are vital in correcting miscarriages of justice. Appellate courts not only correct individual errors but also shape broader legal standards. Reversal precedents are especially powerful—they recalibrate justice by discarding outdated or incorrect legal doctrines, as shown in these landmark cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments