Correct, and I think we’re in fundamental agreement, though I’m leaning toward the minor-detail nitpick as the basis for the appeal that will be argued in this case.
There was a recent trial around here for a murder suspect who’s previous conviction was overturned. If you read the various reports it sounds like he was railroaded. I happen to know a few people who know him and all have no doubt he was guilty. However there was a very specific thing that happened in his first trial that I have no idea how it was allowed. A witness statement was allowed to be played for the jury. That witness died before trial so of course they could not be cross examined. That is definitely grounds for appeal and it did get him a new trial and eventually an acquittal.
Her car recorded 71 mph. I would think faster given how far one of the children traveled. It’s basically the length of a football field. The Prosecutors could recreate the accident with a dummy of that’s allowed on appeal.
No new evidence can be considered on appeal, only the record from the trial court.
But yes, accident reconstructionists can estimate speed pretty well mathematically based on weight of the object (child), etc.
From my physics knowledge, I would expect mass of the struck object to matter very little, in the case where it’s much less than the mass of the car. But I have a difficult time calculating how far an object would be thrown, at any given speed, because I’m not sure how to estimate how much vertical velocity the car would impart on the struck object: That seems to me like it’d depend on things like the geometry of the object and the front of the car.
Accident reconstructionists take all that (and more) into consideration when they do their calculations.
Oh, sure, if nothing else, they could do experiments with test dummies, and calibrate formulas based on that. Though I imagine that nowadays, simulation engines are probably good enough that they can do the whole thing virtually.
Isn’t it pretty much a given that anyone with the money to do so would insist on exactly that, if it was either that or life in prison (or, at best, decades in prison… as a 50-something?)?
-Every objection that didn’t go your way? Well, gosh, it’s just intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers that not only was it wrongly decided, it’s eversible error. Here’s a dozen published cases that say exactly that (if you take a screen cap, convert it to a jpeg, copy and paste it a couple hundred times until you can’t hardly read it, then print it out on dirty paper, turn the paper sideways, and squint at it).
-That juror you wanted struck, or objected to the prosecution striking? Why, that’s a gross violation of the defendant’s right to an impartial jury. That’s clearly—spell it with me now—R O R R E.
-Asked the judge for a directed verdict after the state put on their case and the judge declined? Reversible error. Clearly no reasonable jury could have found the client guilty at that point. Clearly.
-Asked the judge for a directed verdict again after you put on your case on, and still no dice? I’ll have that reversible error, please!
It seems to me, that when you have the money, you can always find something to hang your hat on to at least argue for an appeal. It’s just a question of whether you really want to spend that much money on a losing argument.
People with a lot of money, and people with very little (and access to court appointed appellate attorneys) are going to appeal a conviction. There is almost no downside. I would often tell my clients after losing a criminal trial something like “I don’t think the judge many any reversable errors, but it is worth having another set of eyes review the transcript and see what they can find.” I recall only a few clients not wanting to bother appealing a conviction on a serious charge. And, I don’t recall a single case where the appellate lawyer couldn’t find at least one issue to brief to the court of appeals. A lot happens at trial, and the judge has to make a lot of decisions. Suppression motions, voir dire challenges for cause, prosecutorial misconduct in opening statements, evidentiary rulings throughout the trial, sentencing decisions. There’s always something.
This is a report of appeals of criminal convictions in state courts.
So basically, in 12% of appeals, appellate courts reversed, remanded, or modified a component of the trial court decision.
I didn’t read the report in detail, but it doesn’t look like it gives a quick summary of the number of appealed cases that eventually end in acquittals, but as many of the appeals concern the severity of the punishment, or that the person is convicted again, then the number is obviously less than this.
I was going to say. Sometimes even a motion for judgement n.o.v. Plus the defendant can always try throwing the attorney under the bus and ask for a new trial. Doesn’t matter that she hired her own attorney, only whether the attorney’s alleged incompetence was likely to have changed the outcome of the trial.
~Max
Things that I found out by watching YouTube videos by lawyers:
Apparently, appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel is rarely successful.
.
I’m no expert but from what I’ve seen it has to be gross incompetence to get it overturned. It does happen from time to time but it has to be more than just a bad strategy.
Yes, something on the order of being drunk during trial or asleep at counsel table.
Even falling asleep during trial is not necessarily ineffective counsel; the lawyer must be asleep for a “substantial portion” of the trial for their assistance to be considered ineffective:
But courts have unanimously held that merely showing your lawyer was unconscious part of the time isn’t enough to show “ineffective assistance.”
An interesting case with some parallels to this one (rich defendant, fatal DWI crash) is the case of actress Amy Locane. The appeal came from the state side. She served time in jail but it was found to be too lenient according to state law. She was resentenced to an additional 8 years in prison.
I immediately thought of this case (which admittedly was on the more severe end, and did yield a new trial):
Sentencing was apparently today (10 June).
I understand how concurrent sentences work-- that you can’t get out as early as you would with time off for good behavior than you would if you were serving a single sentence of the same length-- but I still really think that this kind of homicide-- wanton waste of very young lives for the fun of going fast-- really calls for consecutive sentences.
I could even live with the 3 years served concurrently, but I really wish each boy got a separate sentence.