Criminal Defense Lawyers

Correcting Trial Errors Through Federal Appeals

Correcting Trial Errors Through Federal Appeals

Making mistakes is part of being human. With the complex rules and procedures involved in criminal trials, errors inevitably occur. While we strive for a perfect justice system, perfection remains elusive. When mistakes happen during trial that affect the outcome or deprive the defendant of a fair process, our legal system provides a mechanism for correcting those errors through appeals.

The Importance of Raising Objections

In order to preserve an issue for appeal, attorneys must make timely objections during trial. If a party fails to object to an error when it occurs, they have waived their right to raise that issue on appeal. As the saying goes, “use it or lose it.” Appellate courts will typically only review errors that were properly objected to during trial. This allows the trial judge a chance to immediately fix or prevent the error.There are a few exceptions when an appellate court may still review an unpreserved error, such as plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel. But in general, the failure to object at trial forfeits the issue on appeal. Making objections promptly is critical for protecting your client’s rights.

What is Plain Error?

Plain error is an exception that permits appellate courts to review obvious mistakes, even if there was no objection during trial. For an appellate court to recognize plain error, several conditions must be met:

• The error was not intentionally relinquished or abandoned
• The error is clear and obvious
• The error affected substantial rights of the defendant
• The error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings

This four-part test ensures that plain error review remains rare and limited to only those errors that seriously undermine justice. The defendant bears the burden of proving all elements of the plain error standard.Courts use plain error sparingly, because it undermines the requirement for parties to raise timely objections. Routine use of plain error review would diminish diligence and allow parties to “sandbag” the trial court by failing to object, only to raise the issue on appeal if the case does not go their way.

Common Trial Errors Appealed as Plain Error

While the plain error rule remains strictly limited, courts have recognized certain categories of errors as so fundamentally unfair that they warrant correction on appeal even absent objection. Some examples include:

• Deprivation of the right to counsel
• Lack of an impartial judge
• Unlawful exclusion of jurors based on race or gender
• Improper instruction on reasonable doubt
• Prosecutorial misconduct aimed at depriving the defendant of a fair trial
• Sentencing based on erroneous or unconstitutional factors

Plain error review provides a crucial backstop to correct miscarriages of justice when trial counsel fails to recognize and object to substantial errors. But reversal remains rare, given the stringent standards.

Harmless Error vs. Prejudicial Error

Not every error requires reversal of a conviction or sentence. Appellate courts must determine whether an error impacted the trial outcome or was merely harmless. The harmless error rule recognizes that small, technical errors inevitably creep into even the most well-run trials.Errors that do not cause prejudice or affect substantial rights are deemed “harmless” and do not warrant reversal. But errors that impact the outcome or deprive the defendant of core rights are “prejudicial” and require the verdict or sentence to be set aside.When an appellate court finds that an error prejudiced the defendant’s rights, it has determined that the error was not harmless, and reversal is required. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that an error was harmless.

Common Harmless Errors

Certain minor technical errors are regularly deemed harmless, including:

• Typographical errors in documents
• Incorrect citations to statutes or case law
• Minor omissions in jury instructions on elements of a crime, if the essence was conveyed
• Failure to arraign defendant on the exact charges, if defendant received notice
• References to inadmissible evidence, if the evidence was not revealed to the jury

These types of small defects, while regrettable, do not fundamentally impair the trial or deprive the defendant of core rights. Therefore, they are considered harmless.

Prejudicial Errors Requiring Reversal

More serious errors that are deemed prejudicial and require reversal include:

• Erroneous jury instruction on reasonable doubt
• Improperly admitted coerced confession
• Failure to provide a lawyer for an indigent defendant
• Improper exclusion of qualified jurors based on race or gender
• Judge’s failure to recuse over personal bias
• Introduction of evidence obtained through illegal search

When core constitutional rights are violated or the trial is rendered fundamentally unfair, appellate courts must reverse convictions. The stakes are too high to allow unconstitutional convictions to stand.

The Appeals Process for Correcting Errors

If errors are properly preserved through objections at trial, the appeals process provides a critical safeguard. The typical route for a criminal appeal after conviction in federal court is:

• Trial in U.S. District Court
• Notice of appeal filed within 14 days after entry of judgment
• Appeal heard by U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit encompassing the district where defendant was tried
• Opportunity for discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court through writ of certiorari

If the appellate court finds prejudicial error, it will vacate the judgment and send the case back to the district court for a new trial or sentencing. This careful review process allows mistakes to be corrected without the extreme remedy of dismissing the charges entirely.The appeals system balances society’s interest in finality with the defendant’s right to a fair process. While not perfect, it provides a crucial structural check when trial errors threaten justice.

Conclusion

Given the intricacies of criminal law and procedure, some errors are inevitable during trials. Our appeals process provides a vital safeguard to protect defendants’ rights. While appellate courts strongly prefer errors to be raised promptly through objections, plain error review remains available as a backstop for severe injustices.When errors do not cause prejudice, they may be excused as harmless. But errors that render the trial unfair require reversal. By allowing mistakes to be corrected, appeals help ensure that justice remains possible, even when humans inevitably err. With constitutional rights at stake, getting it right matters more than getting it done quickly. Our system properly recognizes that true justice is worth the wait.

References

 https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IVG7.htm

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/724615

 https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/plain-error-rule

 https://www.sandsanderson.com/news/2022/01/13/fixing-the-appellate-record-when-its-broken-undoing-clerical-errors/

 https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IVG6.htm