What is the legal test for reversing a finding of guilty in a sexual assault case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lopez, 188 Cal.App.3d 592, 233 Cal.Rptr. 207 (Cal. App. 1986):
Rose v. Clark reasons that the very purpose of a trial is to decide the factual question of guilt or innocence. Where a trial is tainted with constitutional error that undermines the trial as a vehicle for determining guilt or innocence, then a reviewing court need not consider particular evidence. The high court uses three examples of fundamentally unfair cases requiring automatic reversal: (1) introduction of coerced confessions; (2) complete denial of the right to counsel; or (3) adjudication by a biased judge.
The harmless error standard of review necessarily presupposes a fair trial:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
