Should convictions be overturned if appeals are cut short by death?

Great Debates
21

With the greatest respect to the esteemed Northern Piper, the idea that the presumption of innocence is not exhausted until all appeals are final is too general a proposition to be sound.

If a person is convicted, then the presumption of innocence disappears. If the accused chooses not to lodge an appeal, then necessarily the presumption of innocence does not continue to exist as if in some sort of limbo.

While there is a right to (some) appeals, the convicted person does not have to show any sound basis for expecting success in the appeal prior to lodging it. The grounds must be cromulent, but they may be entirely without merit. It seems to me that the mere filing of a self-serving piece of paper whose merit is untested and which may be (and commonly is) baseless is hardly a basis for the magical restoration of some presumption that did not exist moments before the paper was filed.

There is the prospect of the presumption being restored if a conviction is overturned and a retrial ordered. Then, the fact that there was an earlier conviction is quite irrelevant on the new trial. If that is what is meant by the presumption of innocence not being exhausted until appeals are finalised then I am on board with that, but that proposition is contingent on the appeal’s being successful.

It escapes me how it can be a good idea for the presumption to be restored on the basis merely that some paper has been filed.

Consider this scenario. Husband and wife each with prior children had wills in favour of each other during the marriage, but they have now separated but not divorced. Husband has gone to the trouble of getting a new will; wife has not. Her will makes everything over to him, and his new will transmits that to his kids.

Ordinarily, the murder conviction will vitiate any prospect he has of inheriting from the wife, meaning that her share of the estate can be expected to go to her kids.

He appeals and tops himself, thereby (on the basis of the rule under discussion) depriving her kids of anything and enriching his own.

Such an outcome is bizarre.

I can understand the rule as some sort of gesture to lenience, but it must bend to justice. I don’t know of any other place where this rule exists - usually death brings criminal proceedings to an end retaining the legal status quo at the time of the death.

Thus, if an appeal has been lodged but not decided, the conviction abides. If the appeal has been successful and a retrial ordered as at the time of death, there is no conviction. All of that is a logical consequence of the onus of proof. The idea that, as a general proposition, during the appeal stage the prosecution has presumptively not discharged its burden despite a jury verdict in its favour is to take the idea of onus of proof off the rails.

As observed above, there is no presumption of success on appeals, otherwise appeals would succeed at a far greater rate than they presently do.

22

Sure, but in cases where “how the case was conducted” includes significant violations (from incompetence to outright misconduct) of the defendant’s rights, should they be stuck with a potentially patently unfair and unjust conviction as part of their legacy when they never got a meaningful, legitimate chance to defend themselves in the first place?

23

Perhaps the individual wasn’t of sound mind when they committed suicide.

Obviously, not all suicides are caused by mental illness; there are clearly situations in which suicide is a perfectly rational and sensible choice (e.g. terminal degenerative illness).

But the only way to find that out is to talk to the guy, which you can’t do once they’re, you know, dead.

24

Thanks - very interesting. Author lays out a proposed solution starting on page 2223 (resolve the issue with a hearing balancing interests of various parties).

Another famous “beneficiary” of this doctrine: John Demjanjuk. John Demjanjuk - Wikipedia

25

No. And yes. An appeal may address both interpretations of the law and factual findings. In fact, virtually all of them do. Without actually looking at Hernandez’ briefs, I can guess with reasonable certainty that grounds for appeal included erroneous admission of evidence by the trial judge and erroneous jury instructions. However, the appeal almost certainly also argues that the evidence on more or more elements of the crime was insufficient for a reasonable jury to convict. This is a legal question, but generally involves some determinations - or redeterminations - of factual issues. The appellate court cannot determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction without actually making its own factual determinations.

What an appellate court doesn’t do is reweigh the evidence. If the jury chose to disregard the testimony of a particular witness because the witness was not credible, that is a finding solely in the jury’s province. The appellate court doesn’t see the witness testify firsthand and is therefore not in a position to observe demeanor, etc., and similarly doesn’t have the opportunity to examine physical evidence like a murder weapon.

26

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
But aren’t appeals about how the case was conducted and not a retrial of the facts?

[/QUOTE]

To illustrate what RNATB (dude get a shorter handle, your initials are longer than my full name ;)) said:

Let’s say Andy Anarchist is convicted of causing actual bodily harm. The prosecution says that Andy, during a riot threw a rock which hit a police constable giving him a concussion. Patty Peacenik testifies at trial she saw Andy throw a rock which hit the policeman. The trial Court accepts this and convicts Andy.Andy insists that Patty was mistaken.

On Appeal; what the Appellate Court will not usually overturn a factual finding. Andy is saying that Patty is lying or misremembering. The Appellate Court will defer to the Trial Court, they heard the evidence live and are best to decide whether Patty was credible or not.

Now lets say instead of that, it comes out during Cross at trial, that Patty only saw Andy throw the rock, she did not see it hit the policeman then the issue at Appeals is different. At this point the question becomes, whether there was sufficient factual evidence to convict Andy, the answer is no, no witness ties Andy’s throwing to the injury. There is no evidence to suggest that Andy’s action caused the injury, so there is no way that finding could or should have been given.

Remember, sufficiency of evidence is a question of law.

Now add a wrinkle. Let’s say that Patty had insisted that she saw the rock hit the Constable, but she is unsure if it was Andy’s. In that case, though the question is that of sufficiency, however, the Appellate Court has to in essence weigh the evidence, there are doubts as to whether Patty did, in fact, see Andy’s rock hit the Constable.

If the Court decides on the basis of the record there are doubts whether Patty could reasonably say that it was indeed Andy’s rock which hit the Constable, then it becomes an issue of sufficiency, there is reasonable doubt and that should have fallen to the Accused’s favour.

If on the other hand, they conclude that the claim by Patty was one which a reasonable tribunal could have accepted, then its a question of fact and will normally not be overturned.