Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
61. On appeal, what should the appellate court do?
When the prosecution rested its case, the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty. The defense attorney did not object at the time. The jury withdrew, discussed the case, and agreed to a guilty verdict. The jury returned to the courtroom and announced the guilty verdict. The defense attorney then voiced an objection to the judge's having directed the verdict. The court overruled the objection and sentenced the defendant to 20 years in prison.
In a trial of a defendant for armed bank robbery, the prosecutor presented overwhelming evidence of guilt. Three tellers identified the defendant as the robber, a latent fingerprint found on the bank counter linked the defendant to the scene, and bank money had been found in the defendant's car. The police had arrested the defendant immediately after the robbery, as the defendant was driving away from the bank.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. A defendant's right to an impartial jury includes a jury free from unfair influences or pressures, which the judge plainly did here. By directing the jury to come back with a guilty verdict, the judge rendered the jury no longer impartial. As a result, the defendant's conviction should be reversed on the grounds that he was denied his constitutional right to a trial by jury.
A is incorrect. The issue here is the violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The appellate court cannot affirm the conviction because of this constitutional violation, irrespective of whether the defendant's attorney's objection was untimely.
B is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution guarantees defendants a trial by an impartial jury for serious offenses. Here, the defendant is charged with the serious offense of armed robbery. Although the prosecution presented evidence firmly establishing the defendant's guilt, the judge's direction of the jury was a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury. The conviction cannot be affirmed, even in light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. In order to have a conviction reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the claimant must show that the counsel's performance was deficient and that prejudice resulted (but for counsel's error, the result of the trial would have been different). Here, the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. The timing of the defense counsel's objection to the judge's directions to the jury would not likely have made a difference in the ultimate outcome of the trial. Therefore, reversing the conviction on these grounds is not appropriate.