The Fugitive with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones was on the other night, and got me thinking about how the generic ‘new evidence’ thing works. I won’t hold any legal proceedings in the flick as gospel, but the general premise makes me wonder.
If Sam Sheppard was convicted of murder, but then new evidence that exonerates him comes forward, what happens? Does his attorneys file an appeal for a new trial, or does a higher-level court judge just review the case and unlock the cell?
Also, wouldn’t Sheppard be liable for escape from custody and flight from Federal Officers? If he were acquitted of the murder, would he have to go back and be tried for the running away bit? Or would the prosecution have the option not to press charges?
Tripler
Just curious. And no, I don’t need an answer fast.
Yes, his attourneys would file for an appeal. IIRC. it’s not uncommon for suitable cases for prosecutors to essentially wave their hands and say, “Meh, we don’t oppose.” So the defense attourneys file and the whole thing is taken care of as soona s the paperwork gets processed.
Yes and yes.
He is guilty of fleeing federal custody, maybe fraud, and probably disobeying a legal order from the police.
Prosecutors do not have to file, although not doing so may be considered misconduct. It’s generally recognized that if you don’t have evidence tyo convict, you don’t prosecute. Since jeopardy attaches once you file, it’s unwise to do so before having reasonable evidence.
In this case, it’s quite within the bounds of imagination that Dr. Richard Kimble (not Sheppard) would be , or sentenced to a token amount in light of unusual circumstances. Given that he caught a cop-killer, proved his innocence, exposed a criminal conspiracy including multiple homicides and deliberately releasing a dangerous drug, and no doubt made national headlines many times over… well, Kimble would probably spend a brief time in jail, and never return to prison at all. His lawyer would be all over this, the press will be crawling atop this like flies on, well, you know, and it’s flat obvious that Deputy Gerard is now fully on Kimble’s side. And you don’t find better witnesses than your own captor.
In California, you would not file an appeal based on new evidence. Appellate courts look only at the trial court record; their concern is whether the trial court proceeding was fair, not whether the defendant is guilty or not.
What you would do instead is file a motion for a new trial; this would be filed with the trial judge who heard the original trial, and it asks him or her to order a new trial in which the new evidence could be presented. Obviously, you have to disclose what the evidence is. See California Penal Code section 1181 subd. 8.
The judge then decides whether a jury, hearing that new evidence along with all the old stuff, might have given the defendant a better deal; in other words, it doesn’t have to exonerate him completely, but if it shows, for example, manslaughter rather than murder, that would be different.
Note that it’s a requirement in a motion for a new trial, to show that the new evidence could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence. So, for example, if the new evidence could have been discovered by talking to the defendant’s girlfriend with whom he lived, and the defense failed to do so earlier, the defendant is out of luck.
Although it is not germane to the o.p.'s question, which has already been thoroughly answered above, the conviction of Dr. Richard Kimble for capital murder seems highly suspect. A respected vascular surgeon with (presumably) no prior history of criminal behavior or domestic violence and a parade of character witnesses suddenly beats his wife to a pulp, shoots her with his own gun, then allows her to make a call to 911 before killing her, and then turns around and makes up a highly improbable story about a one-armed burglar, all because (according to the investigating detectives) “She was more rich.” Although motive is not a necessary element in proving the crime, it is hard to believe that even a marginally competent criminal attorney couldn’t cast sufficient reasonable doubt on the case presented by the prosecution to obtain a not guilty verdict or at least avoid a capital conviction. Dr. Kimble apparently got himself the worst highest paid attorney in the City of Chicago to represent him. You’d think he would have learned after Presumed Innocent.
On the other hand, it did give Tommy Lee Jones an excuse to chew scenery and make deadpan wisecracks, though it would have been better if he’d had Will Smith as his new deputy marshal in training. Now, look into the little red light…
Okay, so let’s suppose that the judge is satisfied that the new evidence could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence. Let’s also suppose that this evidence is a showstopper, so convincing that even the original prosecutor says, “Wow. I never would have even charged him if I had seen this.”
Does the judge really have to order a new trial? Can’t he just cancel the old one or something?
Can somebody file on the behalf of somebody who was convicted? Let’s say for example that he was executed or died of other causes but his family wants to exonerate his name posthumously. Can they file to have his conviction reversed based on the new evidence of his innocence?
Or, for a less plausible hypothetical, let’s say that the guy has been in prison a few years and has settled in. He doesn’t want to be released even though there’s now evidence that shows he shouldn’t have been convicted. Can the state file for a reversal of his conviction against his wishes in order to exonerate him and evict him from prison?
Since I can’t be bothered to do more research on this, I stand to be corrected later.
But as I understand it, the judge has only three options:
– grant a new trial
– deny the motion, letting the prior verdict stand, or
– reduce the charges to a lesser included offense or a lower degree.
If you read Cal. Pen. Code 1181 subd. 8, the judge is only empowered to grant or deny a new trial. But subd. 6 gives the judge power to reduce the charge. Beyond that, however, the judge doesn’t have authority. I don’t read subd. 6 as permitting the judge to reduce the charges to zero.
Remember that there’s a huge difference between a motion for a new trial, where both sides submit paper evidence (declarations/affidavits, photos, documents, etc.), and a real trial, where the trier of fact (either the judge or the jury) gets to see the witnesses in person and judge their credibility.
As a practical matter, however, in a situation where the judge believes that the prosecutors have made the best showing possible on paper and it still exonerates the defendant, the judge will push the prosecutors pretty hard to drop the charges. But as a procedural matter, that would likely require the judge to first grant the motion for a new trial, which would void the prior verdict. But either way, the judge doesn’t have the authority at that stage in the proceedings simply to free the defendant.
Well, I would have said no, but then I thought about Ken Lay. His convictions were reversed after his death because he died before he exhausted his appeals. Now, obviously, if the guy is executed, he will necessarily have exhausted his appeals before that happens. There was also a California case a few years ago where the prosecutors withheld potentially exculpatory evidence, the guy was convicted, the guy appealed on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, the guy died, and the conviction was reversed. I don’t remember the grounds for the reversal – whether it was because he died before exhausting the appeals, or whether it was the egregious nature of the prosecutorial misconduct. But it tells me that there must be circumstances where a reversal could happen posthumously. I don’t care to research the grounds right now.
I don’t know whether the state can file; I suppose that they can since they have standing (i.e., a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding). But that would probably require them to fall on their sword (“Dear Judge, we screwed the pooch on this one royally; please release the defendant and don’t punish us. Love, the Prosecutors.”)
However, some appeals are required by law, even if the defendant isn’t interested in them. Remember Tim McVeigh; he had to fight really hard to waive his mandatory appeals so that he could be executed.
Not really. The state would be a party to the proceeding. By definition, an amicus isn’t a party, just a “friend of the court,” who applies to the court for permission to file a brief supporting one party or the other.
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that an amicus curiae brief cannot initiate a case, it can only intervene in a case that’s already been initiated by somebody else.