Criminal Appeals, Post-Conviction Reviews, And Retrials
⚖️ OVERVIEW: CRIMINAL APPEALS, POST-CONVICTION REVIEWS, AND RETRIALS
1. Criminal Appeals
Definition: A legal process where a convicted person challenges their conviction or sentence in a higher court.
Purpose: To correct legal errors, review procedural fairness, or assess whether the evidence supports the conviction.
Types:
Appeal as of right – automatic in many serious cases (e.g., death penalty).
Discretionary appeal – requires the higher court’s permission.
Grounds for appeal often include:
Misinterpretation of law
Insufficient evidence
Procedural irregularities or violation of constitutional rights
Newly discovered evidence
2. Post-Conviction Review / Post-Conviction Relief
Definition: Legal remedies available after appeals have been exhausted, often through special motions or petitions.
Purpose: To address claims like ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or constitutional violations.
Examples: Habeas corpus petitions in the U.S., Review petitions under Indian Criminal Procedure.
3. Retrials
Definition: A new trial conducted after the original conviction is overturned or set aside.
Grounds for retrial:
Procedural irregularity in the first trial
Evidence was improperly admitted or excluded
Jury misconduct
Newly discovered material evidence
Important Note: Double jeopardy principles usually prevent retrials unless the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than the accused being acquitted.
🧑⚖️ IMPORTANT CASES
Case 1: Miranda v. Arizona (1966, U.S.) – Post-Conviction Relief
Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court
Key Issue: Constitutional violations leading to overturned convictions
Facts:
Ernesto Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. He confessed during police interrogation without being informed of his right to counsel or to remain silent.
Legal Basis:
Violated the Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment (right to counsel).
Outcome:
Supreme Court overturned the conviction, establishing Miranda rights. The case was remanded for a retrial, where Miranda’s confession was inadmissible.
Significance:
Showed how post-conviction review can address constitutional violations.
Created procedural safeguards for criminal interrogations.
Case 2: State of New York v. Colin Ferguson (1995, U.S.) – Retrial and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York, U.S.
Key Issue: Jury selection error and retrial procedures
Facts:
Colin Ferguson was convicted for the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting. Ferguson argued jury selection bias violated his rights.
Legal Basis:
Appeal claimed violation of Sixth Amendment (impartial jury).
Outcome:
Conviction initially overturned on procedural grounds.
Ferguson underwent a retrial and was reconvicted.
Significance:
Illustrates how procedural irregularities can lead to retrials, but retrial is possible if the original conviction is not entirely invalidated.
Case 3: R v. Jogee (2016, UK) – Criminal Appeals & Retrial
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Key Issue: Misapplication of joint enterprise law
Facts:
A man, Jogee, was convicted of murder as an accomplice under joint enterprise law. He argued that the law had been misapplied by the trial court, imposing liability without proof of intent to assist murder.
Legal Basis:
UK Supreme Court reviewed legal misdirection in the trial.
Outcome:
Original conviction quashed; retrial ordered.
Highlighted the importance of correct jury instructions and proper legal interpretation.
Significance:
Legal precedent emphasizing careful scrutiny during criminal appeals.
Reinforced retrial as a remedy when legal error is identified.
Case 4: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978, India) – Post-Conviction Review & Fundamental Rights
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Procedural fairness and violation of fundamental rights
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing a fair hearing. She challenged the order, citing violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Legal Basis:
Focused on due process and reasonableness in administrative and criminal actions.
Outcome:
Supreme Court held that any action affecting life, liberty, or property must follow fair procedure, including post-conviction remedies.
Significance:
Foundation for post-conviction review in India, ensuring fairness and natural justice.
Strengthened the scope of appeals and review petitions in criminal matters.
Case 5: Brady v. Maryland (1963, U.S.) – Appeals Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court
Key Issue: Suppression of exculpatory evidence
Facts:
John Brady was convicted of murder. Prosecutors withheld a confession from a co-defendant that could have exonerated him.
Legal Basis:
Violation of Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Outcome:
Conviction vacated; post-conviction relief granted, highlighting that withholding evidence violates fairness.
Significance:
Established Brady rule: suppression of favorable evidence for the defense is grounds for appeal and post-conviction relief.
Shows how appeals can correct wrongful convictions even after trial.
Case 6: People v. O.J. Simpson (1995–1997, U.S.) – Retrial and Appeals
Jurisdiction: California, U.S.
Key Issue: Criminal trial, acquittal, and civil liability
Facts:
O.J. Simpson was tried for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. The trial involved high-profile procedural controversies, including mishandling of evidence.
Outcome:
Criminal acquittal – no retrial due to double jeopardy.
Civil suit later held Simpson liable for wrongful death.
Significance:
Illustrates limits of retrial due to double jeopardy.
Highlights the interplay between criminal appeals and civil post-conviction remedies.
📘 PRINCIPLES EMERGING
Appeals: Correct legal or procedural errors to ensure a fair trial.
Post-conviction reviews: Address violations of constitutional rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, or newly discovered evidence.
Retrials: Ordered when legal errors or procedural irregularities render the first trial unfair.
Double jeopardy: Retrial is not allowed if acquittal has already been rendered, except in exceptional circumstances.
Evidence disclosure & fairness: Cases like Brady highlight the centrality of due process.
RELATED Blog
comments