A recent court case in Georgia shows that Los Angeles criminal appeals, especially in murder cases, are extremely important.
What happened is this: A defendant was put on trial for murder in the death of a 15-month-old girl. Subsequently, a judge was found by an appeals court to have made inappropriate comments during the course of the trial. This led to a new trial.
Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyers know that a defense attorney is looking out for as many things as possible during trial. They are watching their wording, trying to ensure they ask all the right questions and making objections to important issues. All of these decisions must be made quickly, on the spot.
Sometimes, inappropriate comments made by witnesses, other attorneys or even judges can slip by. While criminal appeals attorneys have the pressure of knowing they may be the last line of defense for someone who has been convicted, the appeals attorneys also have the benefit of poring over the transcripts of every hearing and proceeding to find holes in the state's case.
In the case of Murphy v. State, the defendant was charged with several counts related to the death of a 15-month-old baby. Court documents indicate the man was babysitting the girl, who was the daughter of his girlfriend, on the night in question.
Around midnight, a few hours after his girlfriend returned home from work, the girl was unresponsive. He performed CPR while the girlfriend called emergency responders, who were unable to bring the girl back to life. She was pronounced dead. The cause of death was later determined to be toxic shock, after several internal organs ruptured due to blunt force trauma.
At trial, the man faced charges of malice murder, felony murder and cruelty to children. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court considered whether comments made by the judge in the case had affected the outcome.
In one scenario, when a police detective was on the stand, the judge called him a "good detective," and responded to an objection by defense counsel by stating that the detective had a good recollection and excellent written reports on the case and "hopefully, between the two of those and his good efforts we're going to find the truth of the matter."
These inappropriate comments were made in front of the jury, who could easily have been influenced by these words. Jurors should judge the credibility of a witness based on the witnesses' words, their demeanor and relationship to the case. A judge, who holds a lot of pull with jurors, shouldn't say things that would make jurors think more highly of one witness than another.
An experienced criminal appeals lawyer spotted this problem, saw the trend and was able to use it to help the defendant get justice. In this case, the defendant was able to get a new trial, though it took 12 years for the court to come to this conclusion. While this process takes time, it's a better alternative than appeals being rushed and something being missed.
If you need to speak with a Los Angeles criminal appeals attorney, contact the Law Offices of Stephen G. Rodriguez and Associates at 213-223-2173 for a free consultation.
More Blog Entries:
Police Must Have Warrant to Use GPS Tracking in Los Angeles, Court Rules: February 10, 2012
