What would you do?

Question

If you were convicted of crimes against a child(ren) and were granted an appeal based on a technicality, would you go back the second time to prove your innocence, or would you never go back for your second trial? If not, why? How would that make you feel about someone you know who did not go back to prove their innocence?

So here's a little more info then - this case is from 20 years ago. It's a father convicted of these crimes againset two of his three girls. He was found guilty on both counts by jury, and appealed. The appelate courts odered a new trial, but he never went. No paperwork ever saying it's been overturned, and there's no record of this fact with the state.

Answer 1

I would make every attempt to clear my name. With something like that on your record you are screwed.

Answer 2

This is a question you ask your appellate lawyer, not random people on the internet.

20 years is a long time, and the state of evidence changes, for better and for worse, in that amount of time.

So the specifics of the case matter a lot - we can't know that.

Not only that, but if you are granted a new trial, then you need someone to persuade the DA that doing that is a waste of time in the interest of justice.

But if the DA files for trial, and it gets that far, and you don't show, then you will be arrested, forfeit any bail, and be brought to the trial anyway.

Answer 3

The question doesn't make sense. Being granted an appeal does not mean they were absolved or found innocent. It simply means the person was given the opportunity to have e new trial.

If. however, you mean the person was acquitted on a technicality? Then that's a different scenario.

If that's the case then if I were accused of a crime against a child and acquitted on a technicality I would do whatever possible to clear my name.

Remember, however, that in addition to the lack of clarity presented in your original question we who are responding know nothing about the facts.

Unfortunately, without the facts only the person who has been accused can answer the question as to why he or she doesn't want to attempt to prove his or her innocence.

Answer 4

Appeals don't always remand. Sometimes they affirm or overturn the conviction. The appelate court could decide to remand and ask for a new trial or just tell the judge to fix their mistake, or just say everything was fine. It's up to you if you want to appeal, but I'd appeal if I had a crime against children pinned on me and I had a chance to. That's not good.

Answer 5

If I read your question correctly, the conviction still stands - but you were granted an appeal of the verdict, to take it to court and have another jury trial.

Was the verdict of the conviction OVERTURNED?

If it was overturned, I don't think I would have to prove anything to anyone because the District Attorney didn't prove his/her case.

Answer 6

it depends on the evidence available. Naturally if u are innocent u would want to do everything you can to prove it but if there is not enough evidence and you risk making yourself look worse you would just leave it as it is.
It would be natural to assume that the person who did not go back to prove there innoocence was guilty but it could be a lack of evidence that is holding them back.

Answer 7

I would go back to prove that I was innocence, cause if not that would look bad on your behalf. And I would want to prove it as much as I could.Life is about taken chances, that's all it is and making choices.Go do what's right..Kristy Ward

Answer 8

I didn't know there were second trials, but I guess I'd want to be cleared for sure.

Answer 9

It's not your call.

If your case was dismissed with prejudice, the DA cannot refile the charges.

If it was dismissed without prejudice, then he can refile. Whether he does or not is ENTIRELY up to him - you have no say in that decision at all.

Richard