2006-10-27 03:01:55 · 21 answers · asked by KU 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Appeals are on the basis of legal error, so the the principle doesn't operate the same way.
That said, the defendant is not finally convicted until all appeals have been exhausted or abandoned.
Thus Kenneth Lay, who died before his appeal could be heard, was held not convicted, and the fact that he was found guilty by a jury cannot be used to justify a seizure of his assets.
The Government has said it will now bring suit against his estate to recover the $44 million, but it will have to allege and prove the misconduct and the fact of ill-gotten gains.
Normally because the burden of proof is higher in a criminal than in a civil case, conviction establishes much of what needs to be proven in a confiscation case. (Compare the criminal and civil trials of O.J. Simpson.)
2006-10-27 03:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, because you have already been proven guilty at this point. The purpose of an appeal court is to confirm the rule of law was applied in the case and that fair representation of counsel and fair access to facts were present during the trial.
2006-10-27 03:04:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In some jurisdictions the prosecution can appeal in a criminal matter. No matter who appeals, the same rules apply. The Appeal Court judges have to be satisfied that there was an error in law so that no reasonable person should have come to the conclusion. If they cannot conclude that, the original verdict stands, even though the judges may disagree with it.
At least that's the theory!
2006-10-27 03:08:02 · answer #3 · answered by skip 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Innocent until proven guilty
2016-05-22 00:35:10 · answer #4 · answered by Clararose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, If a person who has been found guilty in a lower court goue to appeal then they have already been convicted of that offence. The court of appeal is considering a point or points of law, not points of fact.
Hope this helps
2006-10-28 01:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by LYN W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Appelate courts do not consider guilt or innocence. They evaluate trial data to determine if the court and court officers (attorneys) followed the laws of that particular state and the constitution throughout the trial portions that the appealing attorney is questioning. An appeal is, in effect a challange of the process.
2006-10-27 03:05:49 · answer #6 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, a court of Law and a jury of your peers has already found you guilty, "Justice" has been done. BUT the appeals court must be impartial when hearing your case. They must take into account all the facts, and not simply go with the previous judges rulling. This is their sole purpose in life, whether they act ethically, only God knows. --- Good Luck.
2006-10-27 03:08:36 · answer #7 · answered by libertyecg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Appeals follow conviction and therefore the appellant is by the very nature of things a person convicted of an offence. Whereas, though, at the court of trial it was up to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, at the appellate court the burden of proof is reversed and it is the appellant who is seeking to establish his innocence.
2006-10-27 03:09:43 · answer #8 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course, why would you appeal if you were found innocent. Sentence or verdict is what's at issue in the court of appeal.
2006-10-27 03:09:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the appeals court you are guilty until proven innocent!
http://www.willyblues.com/
2006-10-27 03:03:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋