A defendant can file a motion for a new hearing after the trial is over. The court may review the case to overturn a verdict or analyze significant evidence that might have an impact on the decision (Welch & Fuller, 2014). A court may also allow filing a new motion in case if a severe violation of legislation is found throughout the process. In a nutshell, recurrent hearings only happen when there is a necessity to correct the mistakes of the previous trial to guarantee a trial that is not affected by any subjective factors.
How It Works
Defendants are usually keen on filing motions after they were found guilty in the court. It may also happen that the judge re-launches the trial process without the defendant filing a motion (Lippman, 2011). The respondent can file a petition inquiring an upper law court to override the verdict of the current trial judge if justices reject a motion for another hearing. Nonetheless, the prosecuting attorney is not the one who usually files a motion for a new hearing since the norm of double jeopardy will apply upon an exoneration. All the same, in some special cases, an appellate court may hear the case again as per the request of a trial judge (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). This means that the trial process may start from the initial step and be reviewed from a different perspective by a brand-new jury.
Fixing the Error
On a bigger scale, any legitimate mistakes that transpired throughout a trial are based on a rather simple principle that allows a new trial motion. An illustration of the application of this principle is a justice of the peace who mistakenly disregarded the evidence that could have a positive or negative impact on the outcomes of a court hearing. An inaccurate omission of evidence might take place if a justice claimed that definite evidence should be left out because of the unconfirmed reports of witnesses. Nevertheless, the key reason why the majority of such rulings is incorrect is that an exception is applied to the legislation. Judges are not commonly finding any noteworthy legal mistakes during the new hearing because they are the ones who conducted the original trial (Hucklesby & Wahidin, 2011). Conversely, if a judge becomes conscious of the fact that a verdict is inaccurate, they may allow conducting a new hearing to escape the defendant’s petition and an obligation to reverse the verdict of the trial on appeal. It is safe to say that appellate courts have a propensity for providing trial court juries with substantial flexibility when it comes to making a decision.
New Evidence
New trial motions may as well be granted when definite types of new evidence have been revealed after the sentence has been ruled. Nonetheless, any minor or somewhat supportive evidence is not a sufficient base to restart a trial. The new evidence normally requires complying with three key principles. First, the defense should have been unfamiliar with the evidence during the initial trial. Second, this particular evidence could not have been discovered before or throughout the process of the trial (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). Third, the obtained evidence should be able to help a jury to make a dissimilar decision. The court may overturn a ruling on the case if, for instance, the defense had been on the lookout for the eyewitnesses who could validate the respondent’s alibi and finally discovered them.
Defendant’s Rights
There are several defendant’s rights that should provide them with the opportunity to receive fair treatment in court. First, the defendants have the right to express their feelings in the court before conviction. This allows them to state their opinion at the moment when the verdict was reached. A victim impact statement is usually operated by the defendant to display the sufferings of that particular individual (Welch & Fuller, 2014). Another victim’s right is to file presence reports. It should be noted that the majority of the states require presence reports to comprise victim impact statements. All these legal papers are habitually filled in by probation officers.
This is done to outline the lawbreakers’ illegal activity and recommend an appropriate sentence based on the obtained facts. Nonetheless, numerous courts do not require to file these reports in case if low-level offenses are involved. In general, these reports are prepared by probation officers in the period from probation to the final hearing in court (Welch & Fuller, 2014). They fill in these reports to find out more about the defendant’s background and witnesses’ opinions regarding the situation. Another important point is the victim’s limited rights when it comes to opposing the defendant. This happens because courts have to balance between the constitutional rights of the defendant and the moral rights of the victim.
The Repercussions
After an acquittal, the defendant is usually set free or allowed to perform correctional work for the public good. Even though the current legislation provides defense for the victims, it does not impact the outcomes of the case in a significant way. To cut a long story short, the final decision depends on the judges who are required to reach a reasonable verdict based on the obtained evidence.
References
Hucklesby, A., & Wahidin, A. (2011). Criminal justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lippman, M. R. (2011). Criminal procedure. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2012). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Publishing.
Welch, C., & Fuller, J. R. (2014). American criminal courts: Legal process and social context. Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing.