California Criminal Appeals

Ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a situation where the defendant did not have a good trial counsel. An ineffective assistance of counsel argument will be accepted where the trial counsel was so below the professional standards for counsel that what he or she did was “unreasonable,” and resulted in an unfavorable outcome. For example, a trial counsel’s failure to object to improper testimony could lead to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

California’s rules of evidence generally prohibit evidence about a defendant’s character used to prove that he or she committed a crime. Typically, this means that the prosecution cannot ask witnesses for their opinions about the defendant’s character (for example, is the defendant trustworthy?) or introduce evidence of prior bad acts (for instance, bank records of a hot check).

In a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But sometimes, the prosecution will try to “shift” the burden of proof, suggesting to the jury that the defendant must instead prove his or her innocence. For example, in a homicide trial, the prosecution may argue that the defendant must prove he or she acted in self-defense, even though California law requires that the prosecution disprove self-defense.

At the end of a jury trial, the judge will give the jury instructions about the law and the jury’s role in resolving the case they just observed. Although typically modeled after the Judicial Council of California’s standardized Criminal Jury Instructions, ultimately what instructions a judge gives is up to that judge and the legal counselors in the case. If a conviction is based on faulty instructions provided over the defendant’s objection, then the conviction can be reversed on appeal.

Defendants are legally entitled to present evidence, including witness testimony, to the jury in an attempt to prove their innocence or otherwise call into question the charges against them. If a judge improperly excludes a witness who would have testified on the defendant’s behalf, the defendant can appeal that exclusion after trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court has referred to cross-examination as the greatest legal engine for the discovery of truth. In a criminal trial, the defendant’s right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. An appellate court will overturn a conviction if the trial court restricted the defendant’s cross-examination of a witness for no good reason.

Courts are limited in how they can admit out-of-court statements and confessions by a criminal defendant. These limitations stem from a defendant’s right against self-incrimination (described below), right to cross-examine witnesses against him or her, and rules of evidence regarding hearsay. A convicted defendant can challenge his or her conviction if the court allows evidence of a statement or admission that violates those limits.

The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s right to counsel. If the defendant can’t afford to hire counsel, the court hearing his or her case must appoint one. If the defendant can afford to hire counsel, then the court usually must respect his or her choice of counsel. In that event, a defendant can appeal if the trial court refused to let him or her be represented by the counsel of his or her choice.

When the police or prosecution obtain evidence in a way that violates a defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the defendant can ask the judge to exclude (or “suppress”) that evidence. For instance, if police find evidence of a crime while searching a suspect’s home without a warrant, that evidence should generally be excluded from trial. If the court fails to do so, that decision can be overturned on appeal.

Before police can obtain a search or arrest warrant in California, they must demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that they will find evidence of a crime or that the person to be arrested committed a crime. Probable cause is a low bar, and police can usually satisfy it with ease. However, if there was no probable cause from the outset, then the entire process may be tainted, and an appellate court may reverse any resulting conviction.

In a line-up, police place several individuals in a line and ask a witness to a crime if he or she recognizes any of the individuals as the person who committed the crime. An identification made during a line-up may be especially persuasive to a jury. However, line-ups are often suggestive and can lead to false identifications. In that event, a court’s decision to admit evidence from the line-up can be challenged on appeal.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from compelling a criminal defendant to be a witness against him – or herself. This protects a defendant from being called as a witness in his or her own case, but it also requires that certain procedures be followed by the police or prosecution in questioning a suspect. Failure to follow those procedures can undercut a conviction’s validity.

The Fifth Amendment also protects defendants against being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same crime. That means that the prosecution can’t try to convict a defendant for a crime after a jury acquits him or her and can’t try to increase a defendant’s sentence by trying him or her again for the same crime following conviction.

The California Constitution and U.S. Constitution both guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. This right ensures that a person charged with a crime receives a trial within a reasonable amount of time after being arrested or charged. Otherwise, the case against the defendant should be dismissed, and failure by the trial court to dismiss can be appealed if the defendant is convicted.

When two or more people are jointly charged with a crime, California law generally requires that they be tried jointly. However, in some circumstances a joint trial would prejudice the rights of one or more co-defendants, in which case the court should hold separate trials for them. For instance, if one co-defendant has confessed, the co-defendants wish to pursue conflicting defenses, or a co-defendant may provide exonerating testimony at a separate trial, then the trial court should sever their cases.

Criminal cases can be decided either by a judge or a jury. But the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally requires that a criminal defendant be given a jury trial if he or she wants one. If a judge conducts a bench trial (trial without a jury) or decides critical questions of fact for itself in a jury trial, rather than submitting them to the jury, then the defendant’s right to trial by jury has been violated.

As noted earlier, the prosecution must prove the state’s case against a criminal defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite a guilty verdict from the jury, an appellate court will overturn a conviction if the evidence presented at trial was actually insufficient to support that verdict.

A person cannot be tried for a crime while he or she is mentally incompetent. A court will accept this argument if, at the time of trial, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant was unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist his or her counsel in conducting the defense in a rational manner.

Crimes are defined by statutes. The constitutional guarantee of due process requires that those statutes be clear enough to give people notice of what conduct crosses the line from legal to criminal behavior. If a criminal statute is too broad (i.e., too vague), then a conviction for violating it will be overturned.

Statutes can be unconstitutional in other, more obvious ways, such as when they violate the First Amendment. If a criminal law abridges the freedom of speech or of the press, then any defendant prosecuted under the law can challenge it on that basis in the trial court or on appeal.

Defendants in a criminal case have a constitutional right to a public trial. That means that the trial must be open to the general public at all times, including during pretrial hearings, unless a court can show that excluding the public was necessary to protect some higher value, such as the right to a fair trial.

At the end of a trial, the jury will engage in deliberations—private discussions among the jurors to determine what the verdict will be. California law prohibits the judge and the legal counselors in the case from communicating with the jury during deliberations, except that the judge may communicate with the jury in open court following notice to the legal counselors. Failure to follow that rule will lead to reversal on appeal.

A convicted defendant can sometimes challenge his or her conviction because he or she is actually innocent. This challenge may be raised in different ways: First, the defendant can argue on appeal that the evidence of guilt at trial was inadequate or evidence of innocence was conclusive. Additionally, the defendant may be able to petition for a writ of habeas corpus (discussed below) if new evidence of innocence is found after the time for appeal has expired.

The punishments that a judge can impose on a person convicted of a crime are determined by law. Unfortunately, judges sometimes impose sentences that are overly harsh compared to what the law allows. If successfully appealed on this basis, the reviewing court will only overturn the sentence, not the conviction.

Statutes of limitations define how long after an alleged crime occurred a prosecutor can file charges. Different crimes are subject to different limitations periods, ranging from as little as two years to as many as 10. Some crimes do not have a statute of limitations. But for those that do, the trial court should dismiss the charges if they are filed late. Failure to do so gives the defendant grounds for appeal.

A court’s subject matter jurisdiction is that court’s power to decide cases of a particular type. In California, the superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can decide most types of cases. But other courts, such as municipal courts, only have jurisdiction over specific kinds of cases. If a defendant is convicted in a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his or her case, then the defendant can appeal that court’s decision on that basis.

The venue of a criminal prosecution refers to the geographical location of the court hearing the case, such as a California county or federal judicial district. In general, a defendant is entitled to have his or her case heard in the county or district in which the crime was allegedly committed. If the case is filed in the wrong place, or if the venue is inappropriate for some other reason, the defendant can move for a change of venue. An improper denial of that motion can be appealed.

To implement the constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial, the California Legislature enacted section 1382 of the California Penal Code. That section generally sets a deadline for the commencement of trial of 30 days (for misdemeanors) or 60 days (for felonies) after arraignment. If trial does not begin by that deadline, and the prosecution has no good reason for the delay, the trial court should dismiss the charges. Its failure to do so can be challenged on appeal.

The California Constitution includes a similar “speedy trial” provision to the U.S. Constitution, but California courts follow a simpler balancing test when determining whether the right under the state Constitution has been violated. As with the federal right, a violation of the right to speedy trial should result in dismissal of the pending charges by the trial court. Otherwise, an appellate court should reverse any resulting conviction.

The California Constitution includes a similar “speedy trial” provision to the U.S. Constitution, but California courts follow a simpler balancing test when determining whether the right under the state Constitution has been violated. As with the federal right, a violation of the right to speedy trial should result in dismissal of the pending charges by the trial court. Otherwise, an appellate court should reverse any resulting conviction.

In most cases, a criminal defendant should not be restrained (with handcuffs, shackles, or similar devices) in front of a jury, because seeing the restraints may prejudice the jurors against the defendant. Unless a trial judge orders that a defendant be restrained in the jury’s presence based on manifest necessity, such restraints are an abuse of the judge’s discretion and can invalidate a conviction.

Criminal defendants in custody are generally transported to and from the courthouse in handcuffs or shackles and may arrive in their jail-issued clothing. But because the sight of such restraints or jailhouse clothes may prejudice a jury against the defendant, jurors should generally not be allowed to see them. For example, the defendant should be permitted to change into civilian clothing before entering the courtroom. If the jury does see a defendant’s restraints or jail clothes, he or she may be able to challenge any resulting conviction on those grounds.

A criminal defendant is entitled to be present in the courtroom during his or her trial. Although trial judges are allowed to exclude the defendant from the courtroom in some circumstances (such as for persisting in disorderly conduct after being warned by the judge), if the exclusion was improper, then the defendant can appeal on that basis.

To ensure that a judge does not improperly influence the jury, California law requires that the judge not communicate with jurors unless both the prosecution and defense counsel are present. If the judge does communicate with the jury outside the presence of the defendant’s counsel, then the defendant can challenge his or her conviction as invalid because of that communication.

Before a prosecutor can use a defendant’s confession while in police custody as evidence at trial, he or she must prove that the defendant was given Miranda warnings (e.g., “You have the right to remain silent”) before making the confession. These warnings are required by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect criminal defendants’ right against self-incrimination. The defendant can appeal if his or her confession was admitted as evidence despite the lack of such warnings.

A warrant is a legal document signed by a judge authorizing police to search a particular place, seize specified property, or arrest a particular person. To be valid, the warrant must be supported by probable cause and satisfy certain formal requirements. An invalid warrant may invalidate the entire case against a defendant. If the trial court incorrectly refuses to dismiss a case based on an invalid warrant, the defendant can ask an appellate court to review that decision.

Identification procedures are techniques that police use to help witnesses of a crime identify the person they believe committed it. However, when such techniques are unduly suggestive, they can violate a criminal defendant’s right to due process. In addition, the defendant must be allowed to have counsel present during any in-person identification procedures after a case has commenced, such as a line-up. If these rights were violated and the defendant was convicted, he or she can appeal the conviction on that basis.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to have the assistance of counsel for his or her defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that this right extends to any critical stages in a criminal prosecution, including certain pretrial proceedings, trial, and some post-trial proceedings. If a defendant was convicted after being denied the right to assistance of counsel at any such stage, then he or she can appeal.

Criminal defense legal counselors owe their clients a duty of loyalty, whether they have been appointed by the court or hired by the defendant directly. If the counsel has a conflict of interest, then he or she should withdraw from the representation. A conflict of interest may exist when legal counsel represents two criminal defendants who may be able to bargain for reduced charges by testifying against the other and in certain other circumstances. A counselor with a conflict of interest cannot provide effective assistance to his or her client, a problem that can result in a conviction being overturned.

Although representing yourself in court is almost never a good idea, the law gives criminal defendants the right to do so. However, a court does not have to permit a defendant to represent him- or herself if the defendant is not competent. But if the defendant was competent to do so and the court refused to let him or her, that refusal can be grounds for appeal.

Defendants have a right to be tried before an impartial jury. But media coverage of an alleged crime or criminal trial can taint the jury pool and result in a jury that is prejudiced against the defendant. Although the typical remedy for such issues is a change of venue, if a defendant is convicted by a jury that was actually or “reasonably likely” prejudiced against him or her because of pretrial or trial publicity, the defendant can challenge that conviction before an appellate court.

Before a criminal trial, the judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel will work together to select a jury for their case. The judge or attorneys will question a panel of prospective jurors to determine whether they would be suitable to serve on the jury. Both legal counselors are permitted to exercise a limited number of “peremptory” challenges, dismissing jurors without having to give a reason. However, if the prosecution dismisses jurors based on race, ethnicity, gender, or similar characteristics, the defendant can not only challenge that dismissal at that time, but also appeal on that basis if the resulting jury convicts the defendant of the alleged crime.

Prosecutors and criminal defendants often rely on expert testimony to help explain complex facts to the jury and prove their own case or rebut the other party’s. Experts are often uniquely persuasive to jurors, making their testimony critical to proving or disproving guilt. However, to be admissible, expert testimony must satisfy certain prerequisites. If a court admits the prosecution’s expert testimony that fails to satisfy those prerequisites, or rejects the defendant’s expert testimony that does satisfy them, then that decision can be reviewed by an appellate court.

At the conclusion of a criminal trial, the judge will provide instructions to the jury, explaining jurors’ role in the case and the rules they should follow when deciding it. Some instructions are always required, and others may be necessary based on the evidence in the case or because of certain events during trial. If the judge is required to give a particular instruction, but fails to do so, then the defendant can appeal that failure if he or she is convicted.

Along with the jury instructions, at the end of trial the judge in a criminal case will give the jury a verdict form, which the jurors will use to render their verdict by finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. However, to support a conviction, the verdict form must satisfy certain requirements. If it fails to, or if the jury made mistakes in filling it out (such as by making conflicting findings), the defendant can appeal his or her conviction.

A “Golden Rule” argument asks jurors to place themselves in an alleged victim’s shoes or otherwise appeals for sympathy for the victim when determining whether a defendant is guilty. Because such arguments are highly prejudicial and ask the jury to resolve a case based on something other than objective facts as proved by evidence, they are not allowed in a criminal trial. A defendant can seek to overturn a conviction if the prosecutor made a “Golden Rule” argument.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution require prosecutors to disclose to a criminal defendant any potentially exculpatory evidence—that is, evidence that tends to prove the defendant is not guilty. Failure to do so taints the entire prosecution and requires that a resulting conviction be reversed.

Among the types of exculpatory evidence that prosecutors must turn over to criminal defendants is evidence relating to the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. For example, if the prosecutor offered leniency to a witness in exchange for his or her testimony against the defendant, the prosecutor must disclose that offer to the defendant before trial. As with other types of exculpatory evidence, failure to do so may invalidate the defendant’s conviction.