The truth about criminal appeals

By Walter M. Reaves Jr.

Now that Matt Baker's trial is over the focus will switch to his appeal. Most people have unrealistic expectations about appeals, and don't understand what really happens. Many people believe a defendant's chances on appeal are far better than they really are.

The biggest misconception people have is what an appellate looks at. They are not a second jury, which means they don't look at the evidence and decide for themselves whether they believe a person is guilty. While they can review the evidence, that review is extremely limited. Basically, they look at the evidence, and determine if there is anything that supports the verdict. The jury heard the evidence and was able to observe the people who testified - for that reason, an appellate court generally defers to their decision. They will not determine for themselves whether they believe a person was believable. Even if a court believes the jury got it wrong, they are not going to reverse the decision as long as they believe the decision was a rational one. That doesn't mean a court will never find the evidence was insufficient, because they do. However, it is extremely rare for a court to do so.

The purpose of an appeal is to review how the trial was conducted. Essentially, the appellate court grades the trial court judge. During any trial a judge is required to make a number of decisions, such as what evidence to admit, and what instructions to give a jury. The appellate court reviews whether those decisions were legally correct.

There is more to an appeal though than simply determining whether the trial court made a mistake. The court must then determine if the mistake made a difference in the trial. In legal jargon they determine if the mistake contributed to the verdict or the sentence. If it didn't then it is considered harmless. We have all heard about cases getting reversed on technicalities, which implies some insignificant mistake. In fact, that rarely never happens. If a case is reversed it was because of a mistake that may have made a difference.

Appeals go the Court of Appeals - there are fourteen of them in Texas, and one is in Waco. After the court decides the case, the decision can be reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminals. Just like the Court of Appeals reviews the trial court, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviews the Court of Appeals. They don't have to review a case. Generally, they only do so when they feel the Court of Appeals made a mistake, and they want to make sure other courts don't follow that decision.

The appellate process is not fast - it normally takes a year or more for a case to work its way through the system. While trial proceedings are conducted in public, appeals are generally behind the scenes. The only public proceeding will be if the court decides to hear oral arguments - they don't have to do so, and some courts hear arguments more than others. Both sides file written briefs, arguing why they should win. The court reviews those briefs, does its own research, and issues an opinion.

The appellate process is designed to correct mistakes made in the trial court. Despite what many people think, they seldom reverse cases. Different courts have different percentages, but on the average, your chances of winning a case on appeal are less than 20%. In short, once you are convicted, you face an uphill battle.

Hopefully you now know more than you knew before.

      Email    Print