Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
It is the jury that has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not SCOTUS. The role of an appellate court is not to re-examine the evidence, but to ensure that a trial was fair (in terms of constitutional rights, proper legal procedure, etc.) and free of error that might have prejudiced the defendant. While an appellate court can find the there was not evidence from which a reasonable jury could have determined guilt, an appellate court cannot substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's.
|
See I knew I had something incorrect. Thank you!
So (just to make sure I am understanding this), SCOTUS will be able to evaluate if there was coercion, a mistrial, falsified evidence, etc. but not be able to evaluate if the prosecution actually proved guilt?
Threaded Mode
