guitarjeff wrote:
Here is my bigger question. Let's say the jury is moved EMOTIONALLY and finds hm guilty of something. It is the appeals courts JOB to make sure the jury actually used REAL evidence and not emotion? I am asking, I guess, what exactly is the appeals courts real job. Is it just to settle discovery problems and such, or is part of their job also to make sure the jury had and used reasonable evidence. In other words, if the state came out and said, "He's guilty, uh, BECAUSE HE'S A BIG FAT RACIST" and the jury believes this without the state actually showing beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not have been using proper self defense, is it the appeals courts JOB to make sure they DID NOT just convict because they believed he was a big, fat, meanie racists?
It depends on what the defense raises on appeal. No doubt they would challenge the denial of a directed verdict/Judgment of Acquittal. That would, imo, be granted based on lack of evidence to prove the elements to prove whatever charge the jury finds.
If that doesn't succeed, the defense would raise all of the errors made by the judge, such as not letting in the cell phone evidence. More than enough errors made to justify granting a new trial, or maybe even throwing the case out, imo.
So, yes, you're correct: It's the DCA's job to overturn a conviction based on GZ being found to be a big, fat, meanie racist who got out of his car.
_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.
Login
FAQ
