Plan B Forum

It is fundamental in the American court system that after the initial trial, the results can be appealed, but in a criminal case, the prosecution can never appeal an innocent verdict. In a criminal or civil case, the verdict of how much time the guilty party must serve can only be reduced on appeal; money the culpable party must pay to make the other person whole can only be appealed to reduce it.

Why does this appeal process seem to only work in one direction? This is not a universal view of justice. Seems it does not work that way at all in South Africa.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -steenkamp

What is the philosophical basis for the American system? In the USofA the jury is always right. It is even has a name--jury nullification. If the jury reaches a verdict of not guilty because they think the law is unfair, that ends it, but only for that trial. Even is the law IS unfair. The law is not changed and others may be punished in a trial where the jury is willing to follow the law. Why in the American system should a too lenient sentence be not subject to appeal?

snailgate

Surely Oscar Petrus' original sentence bordered on ridiculous. Six years for ostensibly first degree murder? This appears to be a common sense approach to jurisprudence. A gratifying reversal of fortune as far as I'm concerned.

Don't forget - he was first found guilty of manslaughter - 6 years. That sentence did not stand much chance of being increased on appeal; it was not unreasonable for manslaughter.

The prosecution appealed the verdict, but not the sentence because they couldn't win that one first. When they won the appeal and the verdict was changed to guilty of murder, it became feasible to appeal the sentence.

I predicted 20 years in a story last month

Jan knew a lot about Herman Charles Bosman but I forget most of what he told me. Only I remember how he laughed at some things he had read here which managed to describe the death of Bosman’s step-brother as “an incident” or “a tragic event”. The court, said Jan, called it “murder” and sentenced Bosman to hang for the one bullet he fired, except later the sentence was commuted to life. And he only served four years. Four years for one bullet? Then Oscar should be in prison for twenty, he laughed

.

I watched a fair bit of the Pistorius trial as it was happening, via an internet livestream that occupied my mind during some of the dreadful days of insomnia I was suffering at that time. I was fascinated by the differences in the criminal procedure of SA v. USA, and found much that I coveted as a criminal attorney. Like criminal procedure in France and a few other European countries I’m somewhat familiar with, there is a much greater emphasis on actually getting to justice than just trumpeting the ideals, which is what primarily happens in our system.

Any system that puts such a great emphasis on upholding jury verdicts, even in the face of untested DNA evidence or DNA evidence that is exculpatory or eye witness (already notoriously unreliable) recantation is a very warped system indeed. It’s an old joke that everyone in prison is innocent, but the contemporary reality is turning out to be that a great many prisoners ARE wrongfully convicted; if all the innocence project cases prosecutors are currently fighting tooth and nail to prohibit DNA testing in were allowed to proceed, I bet we’d have an avalanche of actual innocence come to light in the system. It’s profoundly troubling that so many work to maintain the status quo while lives are destroyed by wrongful convictions - which harm not only the wrongfully convicted, but the victims who don’t get justice and the ones who never would have become victims had the State done the work of finding the real culprit.

Sorry, on a rant on account of having attended a wrongful convictions panel discussion at WGBH this week - my nerdy birthday gift to myself.

eta: The new sentence in the Pistorius case is a fair bit more just; I’m still convinced it was intentional murder and so I’d have been happier to see him rot much longer, but his life is basically ruined which seems fair.

Why in the American system should a too lenient sentence be not subject to appeal?

My recollection (and I do not practice criminal law (the best I have done is file post conviction sentence reviews on behalf of a handful of defendants), so it is only a recollection) is that the prosecution can appeals sentences in many instances (except, e.g., when a jury is involved, as in a death penalty case). The conviction cannot be appealed if the jury did not opt for a more severe charge, nor can an acquittal be appealed. Yes, the system is imperfect, but I personally have not seen a better one. Sadly, abuses and miscarriages of justice happen in all systems I am aware of.

And BSG, I agree with you re potentially exculpatory evidence and the prosecutors hiding behind the procedural rules to keep it from being admitted; this is something that should be addressed.

Remember this disgusting case that made international news (Daily Mail, Guardian, etc.)?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... y,amp.html

Judge Baugh was publicly sanctioned by the Montana Supreme Court and didn’t get paid for his last 30 days on the bench prior to retiring; he’d been on the bench for 30 years, so just imagine the damage he did in that time.

Judge Spaulding was a pretty decent judge by Montana standards; he gave 15 years with 5 suspended to a 40+ year old man who had intercourse with a 14 year old student.

My former mentor at the public defender, who was elevated to the bench after our year working together, just this past summer finally sentenced the child molester I prosecuted and got convicted in 2012 for repeatedly sexually assaulting his 6/7/8 year old stepdaughter; despite a State recommendation of 50 w/25 suspended and a probation recommendation of 40 w/20, the court sentenced to 15 w/10 suspended.

Only 5 years in prison for destroying a child! (Montana mandates 4, up to life for the crimes he was convicted of - so 5 years real time is barely over the minimum.) The most horrifying thing about the whole situation is that I know in my gut that sentence is retaliation against me for being the reason the judge was shamed by the Montana Supreme Court the first time one of his rulings went up on appeal. My only consolation is that the defendant is such a pathological scumbag there is no way he will successfully complete mandatory sex offender treatment and he’s very likely to end up serving the whole 15. Maybe with any luck he’ll get shanked in prison. (Sorry, but I got to know the child and her mother very well - I will never get that little girl out of my head.)

Is it any wonder I’m totally disillusioned with our system? I’ve seen utter incompetence and egregious violations of duty on all sides - from the State, from the defense, from the court, from the cops - even from jurors, who too often lie in voir dire, sleep during evidence, and shirk in deliberations.

Ours is simply not the best criminal justice system on earth - absolutely not, there are several European models that are better - IMNSHO.

I’ve seen utter incompetence and egregious violations of duty on all sides

And you think that is limited to the USA? I've done a lot of work in Europe and it's no better so far as I can see.

No of course not, but procedurally there are several other systems which prioritize reaching a just result more than our highly adversarial system does. Additionally, many European countries take a vastly more humane approach to sentencing, incarceration conditions, and rehabilitation - which goes a long toward diminishing the harm of wrongful convictions.

Additionally, many European countries take a vastly more humane approach to sentencing, incarceration conditions, and rehabilitation - which goes a long toward diminishing the harm of wrongful convictions.

I won't argue that, and we could improve our penal system a lot; but re the civil systems in continental Europe, at least as I understand them, appear to be changeable at (or at least heavily influenced by) the whim of a judge or investigator/prosecutor, with little regards for the civil rights of the accused. Indeed, in some countries lesser offenses (still involving imprisonment) can be judged summarily without a trial. And of course, a prosecutor may appeal an acquittal. I personally think that, if I were wrongfully accused, I would prefer our system, as impe4rfect as it is. The idea of prioritizing a 'just result" as opposed to procedural fairness smacks of the star chamber, IMHO.