February 29-March 4: Understanding the Processes So Far

Hello Readers,

The brief for the case I’ve been discussing over the past few posts is due this week, so all the work on that has been done by Colleen. By the time you are reading this, the brief has already been filed and our work for this case is complete for now.

So what have I been up to? My work has been a little different this week. I’ve actually been working on case intake for two Spanish cases that AIP has received. AIP receives letters and documents for cases, and we have to look over and decide what we can do for them. To do this, we look over everything we have for them and fill out a form with as much information as we can find regarding their case. I’ve been doing intake for two Spanish-speaking cases. This has definitely been a challenge because I do not consider myself fluent. That being said, it’s been a great way to brush up on my Spanish, and the second case was definitely easier to read than the first. Luckily, at this stage, AIP doesn’t need a perfect translation—we’re just seeking to get an initial understanding of what the prisoner says happened and how that compares to the (English-language) court documents. It’s been interesting to read these people’s stories and learn about the process that AIP goes through to take their cases.

Meanwhile, at my job as an assistant in a local law office, we’ve been preparing one of our cases for trial. I thought the timing of the trial and the due date to file the motion for our case at AIP was a great opportunity to compare processes. So this week I want to go over in more detail the difference between trials, appeals, and post-conviction relief.

Trial Law

Trial law is basically the first step in this whole process. I’ll be talking specifically about the criminal process because that’s what I’m familiar with. So, let’s say you are accused of a crime. A report is filed against you or a grand ^jury indicts you, and right away you have the option to plead guilty, not guilty, or sometimes, no contest. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you are provided a public defender or appointed lawyer. Then, most people choose to plead not guilty, at least initially. From there, your lawyer is going to start looking for all the information they can find that could show you are innocent or that could undermine the State’s evidence against you such that they cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Your lawyer will also be looking to make sure your constitutional rights were not violated and are not being violated. They’ll look for flaws in the arrest process, they’ll look for evidence of a culpable third-party, etc. Basically, they have to build a case from scratch. Meanwhile, the prosecution has already built their case against you, and may choose to continue to develop it further. Often, a defense lawyer will challenge the State at a preliminary hearing to prove that they at least have enough evidence to go to trial. This also allows the defense to get a preview of what the State’s evidence against them may be. If the case goes to trial, this will be the first time this case is presented to a jury.

However, most cases will not go to trial. Most people will take a plea agreement, which is when you agree to plead guilty to certain charges, usually in exchange for either lower charges or a lesser punishment.

But let’s say you and your lawyer and the prosecutor go through then entire process and you never plead out. You’ll go to trial, they’ll present all their evidence, and a decision of guilty or not guilty will be made either by a jury or a judge. That’s when the appeal process can start.

Direct Appeal

A direct appeal happens directly after a guilty ruling is made. When asking for a direct appeal, you’re basically asking to have a higher court re-examine the case in hopes that they will make a different decision about what evidence could be used against you, or whether the evidence against you was sufficient to convict you.

So, let’s say for whatever reason, you didn’t take a plea agreement and were handed a guilty verdict. Maybe you believe that with the evidence presented, the verdict was wrong. Or perhaps your issue is with the overly-harsh sentence rather than the verdict itself. Either way, you and your lawyers think something went wrong, and when convicted of a crime, you have the right to try and correct it.

In direct appeal, you are completely limited to whatever is on the record already from the trial process. You cannot bring in new evidence or take out evidence you don’t like, other than to argue that the trial judge illegally let certain evidence in or kept certain evidence out. For example, if an illegal stop and search came in through a trial judge, you could argue in appeals why the evidence used in the illegal search shouldn’t have been relied upon.You can make different arguments, such as saying the evidence used shouldn’t have been given credibility, but overall you’re very limited in what else you can say. Because of this, arguments made during appeals typically question the legality of various rulings or the sentencing, rather than the facts of the case. If, for example, you wanted to bring in a newly discovered DNA test, you would have to petition for PCR.

Post-Conviction Relief

PCR happens after the direct appeal process. The difference between appeals and post-conviction relief (PCR) is still a bit confusing to me, but my understanding is that PCR is a legal process that allows a convicted prisoner to bring in new evidence or to challenge the constitutionally of the process that convicted them (e.g., to argue that their lawyer didn’t adequately defend them, so their constitutional right to a lawyer was violated). So, if new information is found, if the law changes, if a credible claim that a defense lawyer was inadequate, etc., then an evidentiary hearing is held to present the new information. This is overseen by the original trial judge (not an appellate court) and that judge makes a ruling as to whether they will grant relief. Relief can include a new trial, release from prison, and more. It just depends on the circumstances.

In PCR, you have to create a new record, basically. The only evidence that can be used is the evidence from the PCR evidentiary hearing. From there, you can go through a new appeals process, but you can only use the record created by the evidentiary hearing to debate whether your PCR should have been granted (i.e., you can’t usually re-argue things from your direct appeal).

This is complex topic, and there’s so much more I could talk about, but these are my general understandings of the process for now. I hope this makes things easier when reading my blog and understanding my project. I’m excited to start work on other PCR and appeals cases next week.