A Texas appeals court tossed out the criminal conviction of former US House majority leader Tom DeLay on Thursday, saying there was insufficient evidence for a jury in 2010 to have found him guilty of illegally funneling money to Republican candidates. ... The Texas third court of appeals said the evidence was "legally insufficient," and in a two to one ruling decided to "reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal."These sorts of appellate decisions rarely sit right with me, and not because it was a noted political goon that got off.
I don't like it when the appellate courts sit as a "super-jury". Whether it is a bench trial (the judge finds the facts) or a jury trial, the finder-of-fact sees the witnesses testifying. They see which witnesses appear to be evasive, which ones break out into a cold sweat. They see the demeanor of the witnesses. They see which witness says one thing when their face says something else.
Appellate judges see none of that. They see a bound series of exhibits, they read the transcripts. The only live interactions that they see are the attorneys making oral arguments. They don't get any of the flavor.
If you want an example of the difference between hearing someone and reading a transcript, you can watch/listen to Dr. King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech or read the transcript.
Which one sings? Which one conveys the spirituality and intensity of Dr. King?
I say that it isn't the written transcript. The transcript is a damn fine speech. Hearing Dr. King give it makes it a great speech for oration is not just a matter of words. Words are the foundation and the framework for oration, but it is the delivery that puts on the siding and paints the structure.
There are indeed times when a jury goes off the rails. That's what the trial judge is for, for the trial judge also heard the evidence and can overturn a conviction if necessary. But the trial judge didn't.
Yes, there are times when it is proper for an appeals court to step in. But I believe that appellate court do that far, far more times than they should.
So when I read of an appellate court overturning a jury's verdict, it doesn't sit right with me.
2 comments:
Appeals courts are only supposed to rule on matters of law, not matters of fact. For that reason, there's a chance for the reversal itself to be reversed at the next level of appeal.
On the other hand, in recent years we've had the U.S. Supreme Court ruling whatever the hell way it wants, for whatever the hell reason it wants, so who knows?\
Very crankily yours,
The New York Crank
Since it'd next go to the Texas Supremes, I'm not optimistic of the appeals court being reversed.
Post a Comment