Federal Court Basics
Part 014

What Happens After the Trial or Guilty Plea?

A defendant who is found guilty in a federal criminal trial and the los­ing party in a federal civil case both have a right to appeal their case to the U.S. court of appeals. The grounds for appeal usually allege that the district judge made an error either in procedure (such as by admitting improper evidence) or in interpreting the law.

The government may not appeal if a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty, because the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no person shall "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. This reflects our society's belief that, even if a second or third trial might finally find a defendant guilty, it is not proper to allow the government to harass an acquitted defendant through repeated retrials. The government may appeal in civil cases, as any other party may. Also, the losing party may not appeal if there was no trial‑if the defendant decided to plead guilty or if the parties settled their civil case out of court. However, a defendant who pleads guilty may have the right to appeal his or her sentence. The gov­ernment may also sometimes appeal a sentence.

An appeal in a federal criminal case usually proceeds in the following manner: Suppose a law is passed by Congress that prohibits demonstra­tions within 500 feet of any embassy. Following ‑the enactment of the law, a group of six people stand on a street corner near the embassy of Malandia. and ask passersby to sign a petition protesting Malandia's foreign policy. The six people are arrested and charged with committing federal misdemeanor. At trial, they testify that they were careful to stay more than 500 feet away from the embassy. However, the U.S. attorney calls a police officer as a witness, and he testifies that the corner they were standing on is within 500 feet of the embassy.

Before the trial jury begins its deliberations, the lawyer for the defendants asks the district judge to instruct the jury that collecting signatures on a petition is not a "demonstration" and, therefore, if that was all they did, they were not violating the law. The defendants' lawyer also, argues that the law violates the defendants' First Amendment right  to free speech, and therefore the case against them should be dismissed. The judge disagrees on both points. She instructs the jury that collecting signatures on a petition is a demonstration and refuses to dismiss the case, saying that Congress may prohibit demonstrations that pose threat to foreign embassies without violating the First Amendment. To reach her reach her decision, the judge consults precedents‑similar cases that have already been decided by other courts. She pays special attention t prior decisions of the court of appeals for her circuit.

Because the judge has determined that collecting signatures is a demonstration and that Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit " demonstration near an embassy, she instructs the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence, whether the defendants collected signatures within 500 feet of the embassy.

Suppose that the jury finds that the defendants did collect signature,, within 500 feet of the embassy, and the defendants are convicted of violating the law. The defendants may then appeal this decision to the U.S. court of appeals. A court of appeals would rarely throw out the jury's factual finding that the protesters were within 500 feet of the embassy. However, the court of appeals may decide that the district judge wrongly interpreted the law; it may decide that Congress didn't intend for the law to prohibit gathering signatures on a petition. After deciding this, the court of appeals will probably determine that it does not have to decide whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit demonstrations near embassies. That decision will have to wait for a case in which there is an actual demonstration.

If the court of appeals decides that the trial judge incorrectly inter­preted the law, as in the example, then it will reverse the district court's decision. In other words, the court of appeals will say that the district judge made a mistake in interpreting the law, and thus the defendants are not guilty after all. However, most of the time‑but certainly not always‑‑courts of appeals uphold, rather than reverse, district court decisions.

Sometimes when a higher court reverses the decision of the district court, it will send the case back to the district court for another trial, or in legal terms, remand it. For example, in the famous Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that Ernesto Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence because he had not been advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. How­ever, the government did have other evidence against him. The case was remanded for a new trial at which the improperly obtained confession was not used as evidence, and Miranda was convicted.

Federal Court Basics-Table of Contents 
Part 003-Map: Geographical boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts-pdf

California State Bar Court Reports | Master Table of Contents | Spanish Dictionaries |Check Your Credit Score
Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet | Entertainment  | UN Treaty Reference Guide
Directory of Medical Dictionaries  | California Injury (Torts) Law | Yaazoo!
Florida Fun | Law Dictionary | White House | US Government | White House | US Government    
eWorld Guide | US Courts| Law Students-US | State Courts | California Criminal Law | California Appeals 
 California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | iBusiness Center | California Writs
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos   | Agogados De Accidentes  | United States History | Spanish
California State Rules of Court | Injury Attorneys | California Legal Forms | Federal Rules of Evidence.Com