What is the standard applied by the Court of Appeal in reviewing the evidence of a criminal case?
MultiRegion, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Barnard v. United States, 342 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1965):
The court quotes its opinion in Kaplan v. United States, 329 F.2d 561, 563, wherein the standard to be applied by the
[342 F.2d 323]
court in reviewing the evidence of a conviction in a criminal case is said to be "whether `reasonable minds could find that the evidence excludes every hypothesis but that of guilt.'" This means, of course, that the court assumes the task of appraising and weighing the evidence, as judges, and with the wisdom and experience of judges. It does not mean that the judges should try to assume the posture of lay jurors exposed to the conflicts and confusions of a long-drawn conspiracy trial of ten defendants, and to determine what mistakes on the part of the jury might be reasonably excusable in those circumstances. The judges are not exposed to those conflicts and confusions. They have the opportunity and the duty, in the course of a deliberate review of the evidence, to determine what part of the evidence has relevance to the charges against this one or that one or more of the ten defendants on trial in a case such as the instant one. Mr. Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in the case of Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 454, 69 S.Ct. 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790 said:[342 F.2d 323]
"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.
Other Questions
In a motion to appeal against a jury verdict in a personal injury case brought by a defendant who failed to raise his objections to the trial judge on the motion, can the appellant appeal to the Court of Appeal to review the motion by the same judge? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
On appeal from an appeal from a judicial review, what is the role of the appeal judge in determining the proper standard of review? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
In a federal habeas review of a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, what are the requirements for the federal court to consider all evidence? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can a federal habeas court review an evidentiary ruling by a state court that invalidates the evidence of a criminal case? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the timing of a motion for attorney's fees and costs in the wake of the Court of Appeal's decision of appeal against the Supreme Court of Justice's decision to dismiss the appeal? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
When will a jury-tried criminal case arise where an upper court can be sure of the insufficiency of the evidence to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal review a sentence from a federal district court under a "deferential abuse of discretion" standard? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is a prothonotary's order for an appeal of an order requiring the Court of Appeal to consider the issues raised in this appeal are "vital to the final issue of the case"? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What are the implications of a new set of federal criminal rules that apply retroactively to criminal cases on direct review? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
When assessing the evidence presented at trial, does a reviewing court need to conduct a thorough review of the state court record? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
