That’s incorrect. You can absolutely appeal a verdict directly, by arguing that there was not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to reach the conclusion they did.
Are you appealing the verdict, or are you appealing the judge’s decision to put the matter before the jury?
I was a juror in a rape trial a few years ago (Texas). Not only did we decide the sentence, we were given the details of the rapist’s former convictions, and and his former victims were allowed to testify about the horrors he’d put them through.
I don’t know how common this is, but I’ve heard that some states only let jurors hear details about the currently charged crime (not past offenses).
You’re usually appealing to the judge presiding over the trial that in effect the jury fucked up. It’s called a judgement not withstanding the verdict. My understanding is that is virtually always asked for just as a matter of course (because why not) and only rarely granted to overturn guilty verdicts.
IANAL, but I think that’s two separate things. You can appeal to the judge on the grounds that the jury fucked up, or you can appeal to a higher court on the grounds that the judge fucked up by allowing the trial to take place with insufficient evidence in the first place.
Knowing how much lawyers like to massively exaggerate, this could be as simple as
Anthony once texted a friend about how much he likes a video game character who uses knives and
Metcalf had a song with the “N” word on his phone.
Personally, I would want to know the details and context of each incident before making any judgment.
That seems like a really bad idea. If I’m putting someone in prison, I want the decision to be as logic‑based as possible. Bringing in multiple prior victims to describe traumatic events feels like the exact opposite — it pushes the jury into an emotional state where anger and disgust are doing most of the work.
I don’t think I could realistically keep my emotions out of it when presented with that kind of testimony. Hearing several people describe what they went through is going to piss me off, and once that happens, the rational part of my brain isn’t going to be driving the sentencing decision anymore.
I get why the system allows it, but pretending it doesn’t heavily bias jurors seems unrealistic.
For the trial or just the sentencing?
Check out these news articles:
In Texas, biasing jurors towards long vindictive sentences is considered a feature, not a bug.
Ninja’d, but:
“Welcome To Texas!”
I am curious how you felt about the process? I think a firsthand account is much more valuable than theorizing about it. Did it feel emotionally manipulative to you? Sorry, that might be too leading. I don’t want to push you into a particular direction but am looking for honest feedback on how the process felt to you.
I will admit I am conflicted about this. I strongly believe that the victim should get a chance to confront their assailant. It should also only happen after they have been convicted. But the way this is set up feels wrong.
When sentencing, I think the past is fair game. Did they steal (or get caught) just this once or are they habitual thieves?
Past convictions, at least, are admissible during trial when the details of the past crimes show an identifiable pattern. Think Ted Bundy and his “broken arm”.
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
Stating for the record that a defendant has specific prior convictions is one thing. Bringing in old witnesses from old cases into new deliberations just for the emotional whammy is some bullshit.
That’s confusing the issue. How a past victim felt about a past crime is unlikely to satisfy the rules of evidence to be admitted at trial while trying to establish guilt.
However, sentencing hearings are typically not bound by the same rules of evidence. Hence a past victim’s description of the harm they suffered might be permitted at sentencing even as it would be excluded from the trial itself.
They were prosecution witnesses, and we heard them fairly early in the trial. The defendant had raped them (and been convicted) when they were children (~8 years old), and they were trying to navigate life as 20-somethings in the aftermath. One broke down crying and told us her sister had committed suicide because of “him” [pointing]. Defense objected at this point, and the victim testimony was ended. I don’t know if this was the end of testimony, or due to the objection.
Apologies in advance for the long answer, but it’s complicated.
The current victim was also about 8 years old at the time these occurred. Plural, because it was multiple times over a period of months, during his parole for the former crimes.
To your particular question, I didn’t feel it was manipulative at all. It was vital information for us to have when considering guilt. There were 4 charges brought against the defendant, and after considering everything, we voted Not Guilty on one of those. The evidence wasn’t sufficient for us to convict, and if that had been the only charge he would have gone free. None of us were chomping at the bit to convict, and the former victims’ testimony didn’t push us toward that since the evidence didn’t pass muster. We agreed on Guilty for the other three charges though. The details from the former victims matched the information later testified by the current victim.
Also, the defendant had seriously violated parole restrictions regarding distance from children, seducing a woman and convincing her to allow him to move in with her family - which had 4 children under 10. He convinced the young victim that she was the evil party in their “acts” – that she was at fault and could never be “good” again. At one point in the trial, she began sobbing and asked the judge if she could ever be a good person again, and promised she wasn’t doing the “bad things” anymore.
Personally, I feel that details of past similar crimes are very important, and should always be included along with testimony from former victims if possible. To be clear, these should be limited to summations of prior court testimony and only for prior convictions. It allows jurors to have a better grasp of probability the defendant is guilty, the probability of re-offending, and (imo) is likely to insure stronger/longer sentences for repeat offenders.
It is my opinion that courts, juries, and the relevant players in our justice system do a very good job of trying to determine guilt/punishment with as much fairness as possible. But the system seems to fail with repeat offenders. Those who aren’t fazed by the first “shot across their bow” seem to continue until something else stops them.
I think it’s relevant that I include some personal details here, which may explain my hostility toward repeat offenders.
First: I’ve had my own turn in this barrel, facing an extremely violent man in my home just a few months after his parole. During the following process, I found out about the victims of his prior home invasion, and it was the stuff of nightmares. He was released yet again a short time later.
Second: While headed home for Christmas, a blackout drunk driver crossed the median and destroyed our holiday, our car, and nearly our lives. We were his fourth victim(s). And he was out again within a few months.
As a result, I’m very aware that victims often will suffer effects of a violent crime for a very long time. It doesn’t end when the perpetrator is arrested.
So yes, allowing prior victims to testify, both about the details of the defendant’s crimes against them and the resulting effect on their lives is absolutely a good thing when dealing with repeat offenders. It is important and relevant information for juries.
Partially due to the matching details of past and present victims, we were able understand with near-certainty what happened and what kind of person the defendant was. And hopefully we prevented any future victims by putting a dangerous predator in prison for life. I wasn’t “happy” about it then, and some of my family/friends didn’t understand why I wasn’t celebrating. But it had to be done, and hopefully the world is a safer place.
No, that was perfect. Thank you for taking the effort to make such a thoughtful, well-thought-out post. I probably should have been a little more specific about what I was asking for though; that is my fault. I was specifically trying to see how you felt about the jurors being used in the sentencing phase instead of the judge. Most states only use juries in the sentencing phase for death penalty cases. How did the sentencing part of the process feel to you?
The jurors generally won’t even know the sentence unless it’s a case that made the news or you try hard to find it. In the first trial, I ran into the judge a few months later and I asked him. He remembered and told me.
Yeah, I’ve served on juries a bunch of times, and the only time I knew about a verdict is when the defense atty came after us in the hallway after we delivered our verdict – yelling at us that is was a three strikes case and what did you do to that guy.
I felt bad (mainly because I don’t believe in the whole three strikes thing), but, dude, they don’t (i.e. can’t) tell us beforehand that it’s a three strikes case, so how were we to know? Give us a guilt complex to assuage your lousy lawyering skills???