What is an appeal and why do I care?
Hello, my friends! I hope all is well with you all. The new house in Idaho is shaping up nicely, my husband's back is improving slowly, and my mother loves her new home in a nearby assisted living residence. I'm grateful for how well things are working out.
There have been a lot of questions directed to my email about appeals, so I thought I'd take a moment and explain some of the ins and outs.
There are three levels of courts in both the state and federal systems. In the federal system and most states, the lowest level is the trial court, the intermediate level is the appeals court, and the highest level is the supreme court. Some states call the courts by different names.
The trial court is the first level. To begin, let's look at the way the American system works. First, a complainant (the state in criminal matters) files a complaint (in family law matters, it could be called a petition, and in criminal cases, it's an indictment or an information). That is the document that initiates the legal controversy. To initiate the suit, the complainant must have standing. Standing means that the person has an interest in the controversy – that is, they have something at stake. Once the complainant files, each party has time to investigate, exchange discovery, and file motions before a trial is set.
When the trial occurs, each side can call witnesses, present physical evidence, and cross-examine the other side. The trial's purpose is to test the evidence and find out the facts. Either the judge or a jury can act as the finder of fact. The finder of fact determines which evidence and testimony are most credible. All civil matters are presented to a jury who must find the evidence that the defendant has proven their case by a preponderance. In family law matters, the judge hears the evidence and makes decisions by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant can decide whether the finder of fact will be a jury or a judge in criminal cases. The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a jury trial, the jury weighs the evidence, and the judge acts as the traffic director. The judge determines, guided by the rules of evidence, which testimony and evidence will be admitted and considered by the finder of fact. At the close of each side's presentation of evidence, the finder of fact renders a verdict. If either side objects to the verdict, feels that it was not based on fact, or feels procedural mistakes were made at the trial, they can appeal. In most states, the prosecution in a criminal case has limited appeal options.
The appeals court is the body that hears appeals from the trial court. It is their job to ensure that the trial court got it right. The court is usually made up of a panel of judges. Not every ruling can be appealed. Some evidentiary rulings are appealable, but for the most part, a case must be final for a ruling to be appealed. Appeals are not second trials; the appeals court is limited to information offered at the trial and whether errors were made. In most but not all appeals, the appeals court can review a written record of what was said at trial. The appeals court cannot see and hear the witnesses and assess their credibility, so they generally defer to the judge or jury who had the advantage of seeing the witness. There are different standards in appeals. Neither side can call witnesses for an appeal. The appeals panel only considers the trial transcript and the written legal arguments, sometimes supplemented by a live attorney who presents argument. A trial is a carefully choreographed dance, and nowhere is that more evident than in a death penalty case. The appeals court is there to assure that the trial attorneys and judge did the right steps in the right sequence. Generally, the attorneys at the trial level must raise an issue to be considered at the appeals court. For example, someone had to raise it before trial for the appeals court to rule on whether Chad and Lori's cases should have been tried together or separate. Now, because it has been raised as an issue, and the trial judge has ruled, it can be an issue on appeal. Appeals courts receive every appeal filed and do not have the discretion to refuse to hear cases. In many states, though, the appeals courts can simply confirm the lower court's ruling without writing a formal opinion. In my home state, we call that AWOP (affirmed without opinion). It means the court upheld the lower court's ruling without writing a formal opinion explaining why. The bulk of appeals are AWOP'd.
In both federal and state systems, the supreme court is the final word. If the supreme court declines to take up the case, the appeals court's ruling stands. The federal supreme court only hears matters that raise a constitutional issue. Every year the U.S. Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions and only hears about 80 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has the sole discretion in determining which cases will be heard. Sometimes the chief justice sets a focus for the annual session, such as second amendment gun rights or abortion cases or search and seizure issues. The court looks for novel issues that apply the constitution to some state or federal law. State supreme courts review appeals court rulings to determine if the issues require further interpretation of a state or federal constitutional issue. Idaho death penalty appeals bypass the appeals court and go directly to the state Supreme Court. There is no automatic appeal of a death penalty sentence in Idaho, as in some states.
Let's talk a little about what happens if problems arise during a trial. First, there is a misperception that a mistrial can derail a case before trial. Mistrials are very rare. They occur only when the trial is underway with a jury empaneled, and then some misconduct by either the prosecution or the defendant that would bias the jury is discovered. It could be evidence offered improperly or witnesses whose testimony creates improper bias.
Mistrials aren't appeals. If there is a mistrial, the prosecution can and usually will refile the case. An appeal happens when the trial is over, and the finder of fact has issued a verdict. In a criminal trial, the judge must enter and judgment of conviction and then a judgment or order of sentence. Once they are filed, the defendant files a notice of intent to appeal and an appellate brief. In general, appeals argue that the trial court made mistakes. The mistake has to be pointed out to the trial judge during the trial before it can become an issue in an appeal. A trained and experienced lawyer in appellate practice will then review the entire trial transcript and develop an appellate strategy. The appeal will claim that the trial court erred. The appeal will allege specific errors and present a legal argument as to why those errors warrant a reversal of the trial court's judgment of conviction.
Let's use a concrete example. We know that Lori has not waived her right to a speedy trial. We also know that both the Idaho state statute and the Idaho Constitution require that if a person's speedy trial rights are violated, the charges against them must be dismissed. There are some narrow exceptions to the six-month speedy trial rule that permits a judge to extend past the six-month point. The prosecution asks the judge to find there is. "good cause" to extend Lori's trial to January. It's a risky decision for Judge Boyce, and he's demonstrated he doesn't like risk. If the judge finds good cause to extend Lori's time to January, she will most certainly appeal. If the Idaho Supreme Court agrees with Lori that her speedy trial rights were violated, the only remedy is to dismiss her case. That means she walks. On the other hand, Chad has already waived his speedy trial right. That means that if the judge accelerates Chad's trial to coincide with Lori's October date, and Chad appeals the outcome if the court finds for him, the worst that could happen is that he could get a new trial.
What about those "phantom" motions that don't appear in the court database? It seems John Prior has filed Motions to disqualify prosecuting attorney (we don't know if this applies to Rob Wood and/or Lindsey Blake); disqualify out of state prosecutor (Rachel Smith); Dismiss Special Prosecutor (Rob Wood and/or Rachel Smith); disclosure of Rachel Smith's Cases and a motion to strike. In this instance, a motion to strike would likely apply to some allegation in the defense motion. What do we know about these motions? Virtually nothing because not only are they sealed, but they aren't even listed in the court database. We know these have been filed because Rob Wood filed a motion to seal his response to the phantom motions. We know they were filed on behalf of Chad Daybell; they seek to dismiss and/or discharge some or all of the prosecutors. It's unclear from the caption whether the motions apply to Lindsey Blake too, or just Rob Wood and Rachel Smith. The prosecution is also asking the defense to produce any discovery they might have that relates to these motions.
The larger question is, why is John Prior seeking to disqualify Rob Wood and Rachel Smith? Remember when John Prior tried to dismiss the indictment because of a problem with the grand jury? The judge denied his motion, and I am speculating that this new motion is another way to attack that issue. If Rob Wood had some sort of contact or relationship with a grand juror that could cause bias to the grand jury, it could be enough to disqualify them.
Wristbands? I do still have some wristbands. I need to open a new P.O. Box for requests. I hope to do that soon. I was able to hand out quite a few at CrimeCon. By the way, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, CrimeCon was a blast. The next one is in Orlando, FL, in September 2023. Check it out here: https://www.crimecon.com/CC23.
