2. In the Appellate Courts, the process and procedures vary with every case. There are so many
factors that play a role in an appeal. In this paper the appeals process will be explained and how
courts decide on how to proceed. An appeal is the proceeding in which cases are brought before
the higher courts for review of the lower court’s judgment for the purpose of trying to convince
higher courts the sentences were incorrect from the lower courts, and the evidence is not efficient
enough to prosecute the individuals. Appeals factor into the criminal processes and procedures
by ensuring the defendant he/she has received due process at the earlier stages of the process and
this is an important part of the criminal process. The reason stated is because “checks and
balances” which are the critical means for pursuing specific legal goals in an individual’s case
have to be right or it can destroy the case. The Appellate courts play one of the most important
roles of our criminal justice system process because they have the jurisdiction to overrule any
judge or jury’s decision in the lower courts. However, it can hurt an individual who pursues an
appeal because the appeals court might feel they did not receive the maximum sentence deserved
for the crime committed. Therefore, they do not have to set any examples for re-elections or
satisfy the media in any form. They strictly go by the Constitution and the Amendments and do
not give slack. They also can deny any appeal for individuals without explanation of why they
chose not to allow the appeal. The Appellate court are bridges that link legal theory and practice
as an means of translating abstract concepts into concrete policies, procedures, and requirements.
In an appeal, both the defense and prosecution can appeal a decision for various reasons. For
example, lack of evidence, an acquittal, or any other information that shows the decision was
made on false pretense. One real-world appeal case that rocked the media and the Internetfor
many years would be the case of Peterson v. State of California. Scott Peterson appeals from the
death row arguing he had received unfair treatment in the trial of the murder of his wife and
3. unborn child. Eight years after sentenced to death penalty, he decides with his defense counsel
that he was found guilty even before the trial had started. Media and society itself had
surrounded the court house and protested his guilt days before his trial began. So now he is
appealing the California Supreme Court telling them the overwhelming publicity his trial had
gotten, jury misconduct, incorrect evidence, and other errors had deprived him of a fair trial. A
jury in San Mateo County, California found Peterson guilty of suffocating his wife Laci
Peterson, dumping her body into the San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve of 2002. In return, he
was convicted of first degree murder on two accounts and sentenced to the death penalty in 2004.
Peterson denied he had done such a horrible crime against his wife and unborn child but with all
the publicity, judge errors such as getting the jurors who believed him off the jury and putting
others on who would convict, and the jury basing everything on how society seen this case led to
many errors in which now are in the Appellate courts today awaiting an answer. No execution
has been followed through because the defense is still waiting for the appeal to be either accepted
for re-trial or denied. There are many cases just like this one that still after so many years are
being held up in the Appellate courts because of so many appeals that have overloaded the
criminal justice system in the last ten years. The improvements could be that unless defense or
prosecution has a sufficient amount of evidence to prove the sentence was unfair, the Appellate
courts should not even be considered. There have been cases that have been over turned that
should have been followed through in the lower courts because the individual was guilty but with
money they seemed to get lower sentencing. On the other hand, some cases are followed by the
media and public that affected the individual’s case for the worse. If the problem is the media,
public, or what the world thinks should happen to someone in a trial, then they could do away
with the criminal justice system to prosecute these crimes.It does not require anyone but jury,
4. judge, defense, prosecution, and witnesses to decide whether someone committed a crime. In
conclusion, the only way that cases appear in Appellate courts which have to be approved by the
higher courts is if either counsel has enough evidence to prove unfair trial and only if the appeals
courts decide to listen to the cases.
5. References
Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003).The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
www.cbsnews.com/.../scott-peterson-appeals-from-death-row-argues-...
