NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the Law and Order re-run Kbrook is watching . . .

If a person is falsely convicted then can the trial still be said to have truly been "fair"?

Define fair.

If they followed "the rules" then it's not exactly unfair.

Is there a fair continuum?

If witnesses lie so that a person is convicted, but otherwise everything else is done as it should, it is still a fair trial.

(I guess - not having any legal qualifications)

If all the procedure and laws were followed, then yes, it is fair. The incompetence of the defense or the skill of the prosecuter doesnt make a trial "unfair".

a false conviction is unjust and unfair.

a false conviction is unjust and unfair.

So, if the defense attorny was an incompetent bafoon who couldnt even dress himself without getting his client convicted, that is somehow the fault of the court and system, even if all the rules were followed?

If all the procedure and laws were followed, then yes, it is fair. The incompetence of the defense or the skill of the prosecuter doesnt make a trial "unfair".

Slightly different question than that asked by the OP but but the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes a right to competent, effective counsel. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/466/668.html), 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result); McMann v. Richardson (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=759#771), 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970) ("[T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.")

I would consider denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel to be denial of a fair trial.

Slightly different question than that asked by the OP but but the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes a right to competent, effective counsel. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/466/668.html), 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result); McMann v. Richardson (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=759#771), 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970) ("[T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.")

I would consider denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel to be denial of a fair trial.


Would you yourself hiring an idiot be a violation of the sixth amendment? I mean, no one really denied you it per say.

And even if it does, suppose the prosecuter is just the shit. Hes just better. A lot better.

Is that the fault of the system? It sucks, and it wasnt justice. But unfair? I dont think so.

It would be a failure of the system, yes...but not inherently unfair.

edit: of course, that really depends on what we are defining "fair" as, and whom we are supposed to be considering. Is it unfair to the falsely convicted and their family? Definatly.

Inspired by the Law and Order re-run Kbrook is watching . . .

If a person is falsely convicted then can the trial still be said to have truly been "fair"?

This is arguable either way and I'm personally conflicted. Black's Law Dictionary defines a fair trial as:

A hearing by an impartial and disinterested tribunal; a proceeding which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial consideration of evidence and facts as a whole. .... A legal trial or one conducted in all material things in substantial conformity of law. ....

By this definition, yes a trial can be fair and still reach an unjust or false conclusion. "Fairness" in this sense is procedural. On the other hand, one can well argue that a trial that does not insure substantial justice is not a fair trial.

I've previously raised the corollary of this question: should a convicted defendant be allowed to challenge his/her conviction on appeal -- particularly via habeas corpus -- on the grounds of innocence without some other constitutional flaw in the conviction? See, e.g., Herrera v. Collins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=506&invol=390), 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (holding that defendant's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation).

Would you yourself hiring an idiot be a violation of the sixth amendment? I mean, no one really denied you it per say.

And even if it does, suppose the prosecuter is just the shit. Hes just better. A lot better.

Is that the fault of the system? It sucks, and it wasnt justice. But unfair? I dont think so.

You can voluntarily waive any of your rights, but gross incompetence by the defense counsel is grounds for appeal, regardless of who's paying their salary.

The important distinction here is that a fair process does not guarantee 100% correct and just results. That doesn't mean the process itself is unfair. It's because life is unfair.

I've previously raised the corollary of this question: should a convicted defendant be allowed to challenge his/her conviction on appeal -- particularly via habeas corpus -- on the grounds of innocence without some other constitutional flaw in the conviction? See, e.g., Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (holding that defendant's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation).I'd say no, lacking some new exculpatory evidence. Otherwise it'd be a free do-over for anyone convicted of a crime.

Would you yourself hiring an idiot be a violation of the sixth amendment? I mean, no one really denied you it per say.

And even if it does, suppose the prosecuter is just the shit. Hes just better. A lot better.

Is that the fault of the system? It sucks, and it wasnt justice. But unfair? I dont think so.

I disagree, and so does SCOTUS.

From Strickland (emphasis added):

In a long line of cases that includes Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), this Court has recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists, and is needed, in order to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses, but it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment, including the Counsel Clause:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Thus, a fair trial is one in which evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding. The right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsel's skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the "ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution" to which they are entitled. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 275 , 276 (1942); see Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 68-69.

Because of the vital importance of counsel's assistance, this Court has held that, with certain exceptions, a person accused of a federal or state crime has the right to have counsel appointed if retained counsel cannot be obtained. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra. That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel's playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.

For that reason, the Court has recognized that "the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel." McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 , n. 14 (1970). Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e. g., Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612 -613 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 593 -596 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render "adequate legal assistance," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S., at 344 . Id., at 345-350 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance ineffective).

The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases - that is, those presenting claims of "actual ineffectiveness." In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose - to ensure a fair trial - as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.

I'd say no, lacking some new exculpatory evidence. Otherwise it'd be a free do-over for anyone convicted of a crime.

That's the easy answer, but what about cases in which the defendant asserts new evidence? Herrera involved alleged new evidence and the Court denied that was grounds for federal habeas corpus.

The important distinction here is that a fair process does not guarantee 100% correct and just results. That doesn't mean the process itself is unfair. It's because life is unfair.

Yeah, that. Though in practice, cash buys a good deal of 'fairness,' doesn't it? :tongue: To that end you could say that 'fairness,' defined as equality rather than adherence to constitutional requirements, is a bit elusive.

you could streatch the point to claim it depends entirely on what ELSE the convicted might otherwise have gotten away with.

logically though, doesn't the question beg something rather strongly resembling a major self contradiction? have we become so conditioned to taking spin as the norm, that deffinicians are themselves no longer possessed of unambiguous meaning?

in what way is inaccuracy ever "fair"?

to be human is to be fallable certainly, but when institutions austensably intended to overcome this limitation fail to, how can they be said to be capable of doing their job, let alone doing so optimally?

a "fair trial" with an unfair outcome, i kinda think no sense speaks.

i guess that means i'm out of step with a time that considers honesty out of step with itself too.

well pit-ty.

the kind of world i want to live in isn't built on the romantacizing of this kind of self deception.

Inspired by the Law and Order re-run Kbrook is watching . . .

If a person is falsely convicted then can the trial still be said to have truly been "fair"?

If by fair you mean listening to all sides, and considering all evidence, then yes, even if it results in a wrongful conviction, a trial can still have been fair.
Sometimes evidence is a bugger like that, it doesn't always automatically tell you the truth.

Well, yeah. Fairness doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the verdict, it has to do with the way the trial is conducted. It's entirely possible that an accurate verdict might be the result of an unfair trial; certainly not every person tried under, say, the show trials of the 1930's in the USSR was entirely innocent but I don't think you could even remotely argue the fairness of those trials on the basis of their infrequent accuracy. Even if they were 100% accurate, the fact is that the trials in no way gave defendants the ability to freely defend themselves and followed no process or protections for the defendants, effectively throwing them at the mercy of the prosecutors and the kangaroo court built to discover the desired verdict.

isn't it the responsibiltiy, i would think it was morally, of ANY judicial system, to ascertain and insure the adiquacy and accuracy of evidence, before accepting as final a decision that would signifigantly affect someone's life?

of course this is why all judicial decisions are, or ought to be, open for further review. granted sufficient evidence isn't always available, and a person may appear likely to reqire some sort of restraint until it can be obtained, well that's fine, then impose the neccessary TEMPORARY restraint until it can be. RESTRAINT under NONPUNATIVE condtions, until guilt or innocence can be RELYABLY established.

No. A fair trial results in the correct decision.

Whether it is a result of witness lie, incompetent attorney, or whatever, a trial that results in a false conviction is not fair.

However, in many cases, it can be said that an attempt to run a fair trial has been made.

isn't it the responsibiltiy, i would think it was morally, of ANY judicial system, to ascertain and insure the adiquacy and accuracy of evidence, before accepting as final a decision that would signifigantly affect someone's life?

Well, sometimes the evidence isn't there. A trial 30 years ago might have had sufficient evidence to convict a person of a crime, but DNA evidence today might be sufficient to exonerate them. The trial was never unfair, but given the subjective nature of the judicial process, changes in forensic technology mean the goalposts for guilt and innocence shift based upon the tools available at the time.

Fairness of a trial is not measured in whether or not the "correct" decision is reached. You can have the fairest trial, but it could still end up in a miscarriage of justice. And vice versa: You can have an unfair trial and it could end up with the "correct" judgement.

No. A fair trial results in the correct decision.

Whether it is a result of witness lie, incompetent attorney, or whatever, a trial that results in a false conviction is not fair.

However, in many cases, it can be said that an attempt to run a fair trial has been made.

How is it an unfair trial if the witnesses don't lie, you have a competent attorney, impartial judges etc - but you're convicted because you were at the crime scene, where you picked up the murder weapon, and you confessed to having killed your worst enemy while standing over his dead body, and you repeated that confession in court in an attempt to protect your best friend?

Why would that miscarriage of justice be a result of an unfair trial?

Inspired by the Law and Order re-run Kbrook is watching . . .

If a person is falsely convicted then can the trial still be said to have truly been "fair"?

Was that the episode about "Sweety"?

The trial was fair, the last bit of evidence turned up (and proved the convicted Defendant didn't commit the murder) after the trial was over.

If the correct procedures are followed, its fair in the procedural/internal sense, but of course going to prison for something you haven't done can never be fair in the wider sense of the word.

Apples and oranges. You can still be fair and make a mistake. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

A 'fair' trial is one that reaches the closest to the truth. Justice may not always result, but the truth will emerge. A trial is to determine what happened, how and if the accused is responsible. It's a quest to the truth. Well, that's just my opinion at least.