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.
90. If the appeals court finds that the trial court should not have admitted the testimony, does it have the authority to reverse a conviction when the trial attorney raised no objection to the challenged testimony?
The defendant has now hired new counsel for his appeal and argues that the admission of the federal agent's testimony was erroneous.
As part of the prosecution's case, a federal agent testified regarding incriminating statements that the defendant's confederate, who by the time of trial was a fugitive, had made during a prior interview. Though this testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, the defense attorney raised no objection. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
A defendant was tried in federal court for bank fraud. The defendant had retained private defense counsel.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category Constitutional Protection of Accused PersonsComments (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
A is incorrect. Although a defendant's failure to object can change the standard of appellate review, it does not foreclose review when the error constitutes a plain error. Plain error is an exception to the rule that, in order to preserve an error for review on appeal a party must make a specific and contemporaneous objection to the perceived error.
B is incorrect. The plain error rule allows an appellate court to remedy serious and obvious errors on direct appeal if the error affects a substantial right. For such errors, the defendant is not required to claim or prove ineffective assistance of counsel.
C is incorrect. A defendant is, in a sense, «penalized» by an attorney's failure to object. Because the attorney did not object, the defendant must now meet the stringent requirements of the plain error standard. Had the error been preserved by a contemporaneous objection, the standard of review would be more favorable to the defendant.