Most people will be familiar with the idea of appealing a court case, but there are specific circumstances under which an appeal is allowed and there are common grounds in most criminal appeals. It is important to note that civil cases can also be appealed and some are appealed in the case of the extent of the money awarded or nature of the remedy the court gives but in this story we will focus on criminal appeals.

A person convicted of a crime has a right to request an appeal. Appeals from the parish court level start with a verbal notice in court that an appeal will be pursued. That is to be distilled into a written appeal that is filed in the respective parish court.

From the Supreme Court level, formal notice of the appeal must be filed in the Supreme Court registry to initiate the appeal process. The appeal notice is to be filed 14 days after the conviction in Supreme Court and 21 days in the parish court.

In a criminal appeal, the appellant can only appeal on a matter of law, that is, if the entirety of the trial process fell within the ambit of what is legally required. So for example, if there is a law or direction as to how a judge is to sum up the evidence to the jury before dismissing them for deliberation, and the judge failed to do it to a sufficient level, that would be a legal grounds of appeal. The appeal court is one that deals with the legal standing of the conviction, not a re-examination of the facts of the case.

The appeal process examines the legal bases of the how the case was handled in a court of law and not about whether the conviction was ‘correct’ based on what happened in relation to the commission of the crime itself. Usually the language around the conviction is one of ‘safety’. That is, would the upholding of this conviction be unsafe in a fair and balanced legal system, giving consideration for all the circumstances.

To extend on the point of jury direction, that is a common appeal grounds as it goes to the heart of a jury trial. The concept that a jury of ordinary citizens, with no legal expertise are being asked to perform what is considered a civic duty by helping to determine guilt, means the legal consequences must be explained to them thoroughly. A crime is considered as being done against the State and therefore, members of the State must determine guilt, but it is the judge that must give them legal framework for how they are to consider the evidence that was presented.

So for example, if there is a single eye-witness account of a violent altercation and no medical doctor testifying to confirm the injuries, then a judge might see fit to give a corroboration warning, which is to advise the jury that an eye witness could still be believable even if they are dishonest and to bare in mind that the evidence they gave was not supported by any of the evidence. If the eye witness was a child, the judge is normally advised to warn the jury of the likelihood of children not really understanding the full extent of what they claimed to have witnessed.

It is not the Appellate Court’s job to determine whether the witnesses lied, or whether the evidence was tampered with, it is their purview to examine whether the conduct of the trial, the manner in which it was handled, reaches the legal standard required for the conviction to be deemed safe or fair or whether, upon examination, the conduct was so egregious that it would be a blight on the system and dangerous precedent, to uphold the conviction.

Appeal grounds are filed ahead of time and then argued in more detail at the appeal and the points are to be supported by other precedents that argues similar facts of law. It is important that the grounds are clear and well-defined and that the appellant is advised of the ramifications of the appeal process.