Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
All parties must present grounds to appeal, or it will not be heard. By convention in some law reports, the appellant is named first. This can mean that where it is the defendant who appeals, the name of the case in the law reports reverses (in some cases twice) as the appeals work their way up the court hierarchy. This is not always true, however.
If the judge allows the expert to testify that there was a reason to explain away inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, this will most likely be grounds for an appeal, as in most cases evidence that only bolsters the credibility of a witness is not admissible.
Appeals against sentence following conviction on indictment: A person convicted in the Crown Court may only appeal against sentence with a certificate of the trial judge or leave of the Court of Appeal. [10] For this purpose, sentence includes any order made by a court when dealing with the offender. [11]
American English and British English have diverged significantly on the topic of appellate terminology. [3] American cases go up "on appeal" and one "appeals from" (intransitive) or "appeals" an order, award, judgment, or conviction, while decisions of British courts are said to be "under appeal" and one "appeals against" a judgment. [3]
The presiding judge should give reasons for the decision, whether the appeal is allowed or refused. Irrespective of whether the convicted person is against sentence or conviction, he has not more than 21 days after sentence or the date sentence is deferred, whichever is earlier, to lodge a notice of appeal. [10]
Appeals and post-conviction cases, by their very nature, focus on legal errors, not factual disputes. Indeed, it is unclear whether proof of actual innocence is, in and of itself, grounds for appellate reversal. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) Convicted persons have two avenues for attacking the validity of their conviction or sentence.
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday tossed out a portion of a Jan. 6 defendant's sentence that could affect more than a hundred other cases related to the 2021 attack on the Capitol.
The Supreme Court ruled that any such motion must be accompanied by a brief (commonly referred to as an Anders brief) outlining the case and any potential (albeit possibly frivolous) grounds for appeal, that the appellate court must independently review the case, and that a defendant must be allowed the right to appeal either pro se or by other ...