Miami Shores Federal Appeals Lawyer

Federal appellate courts vs. trial courts

From television shows to movies, classes in school, and even personal experience, most people are familiar with how trials work. Federal trial courts are tasked with finding the substantive facts to determine exactly what happened in a case and to apply the law accordingly. For that reason, each side works to present its own version of the substantive facts. The attorneys for both sides enter evidence, call witnesses to give testimony, cross-examine each other’s witnesses, and deliver opening and closing arguments to create a cohesive narrative. Apart from cases in which the circuit court requests oral arguments, attorneys in federal appellate cases do not do any of the activities that happen during a case that is before a judge in a trial court.

Appellate courts do not engage in fact-finding. Instead, they are strictly limited to reviewing the trial court’s findings. The purpose of appellate court review is to determine if a legal error occurred to the extent that the error would negatively affect the defendant’s case outcome. The attorneys are not permitted to officially enter new evidence in appellate court. Instead, the defendant is responsible for retrieving the transcriptions from the trial court proceedings and supplying them to the circuit court to be entered into the official record in the appellate case. The prosecution also works with the defense to determine which portions of the transcript should be admitted into the record for the appellate court to review.

Federal appellate courts also differ from trial courts in form. In a federal trial, there is one judge who presides over the trial court proceedings. In contrast to trials, circuit court cases are presided over by a panel of three judges. When circuit courts issue a decision, the judges have voted to collectively decide on the ruling in a case. In addition to publishing a collective decision, each judge on the panel may write a published explanation of the legal analysis the judge used to arrive at the way he or she voted in the decision. Attorneys and judges may cite the appellate judge’s opinion in future cases.

Grounds for appealing a federal trial court ruling

Successful federal appeals are based on the argument that a federal trial court made a legal error that negatively or unfairly affected the outcome of the defendant’s case. Your Miami Shores federal defense lawyer will evaluate your case and determine the strongest arguments that are more likely to be successful when argued on appeal. Some common arguments on which federal appeals defense lawyers base their appellate briefs include:

• investigative errors
• evidentiary errors
• jury errors
• sentencing errors

The federal criminal justice system is not infallible. There are numerous mistakes that can happen at any point in your case. Consulting a Florida federal defense lawyer before filing an appeal can help you identify the strongest issues that are likely to be the most compelling arguments in your appellate brief.

INVESTIGATIVE ERRORS IN FEDERAL APPELLATE CASES

Investigative errors generally happen before the trial begins. When conducting a criminal investigation, there are certain rules law enforcement officers are required to follow. Failure to follow the rules may compromise the federal government’s case. Some common errors law enforcement officers make during criminal investigations include:

• failure to get proper consent or a search warrant before searching a property
• searching areas that are not included in the search warrant
• using coercion when interrogating persons of interest
• failure to inform people who are in police custody of the Miranda warnings

When reviewing your case, your attorney will evaluate the integrity of the evidence the federal government used to convict you. Your interactions with law enforcement may be critical to your federal appeal.

EVIDENTIARY ERRORS IN FEDERAL TRIALS

There are certain types of evidence witnesses provide that cannot be admitted into the court record. Inadmissible statements are generally stricken from the record because they offer information that has not been confirmed, is not based in fact, or that may unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. Some reasons a witness statement may be inadmissible are:

• the evidence is hearsay and is not information that comes from a first-hand source
• the evidence is speculative and is not based on a known fact
• the evidence is prejudicial and would unfairly influence the jury
• the evidence is irrelevant to the subject matter of the trial

Sometimes, the reasons a statement may be inadmissible are sometimes very subtle. An experienced Florida federal defense attorney can identify statements that should not have been used as evidence against you and file an appeal on your behalf accordingly.

JURY ERRORS IN FEDERAL CASES

Any error that affects a federal jury can affect the outcome of the case for the defendant. Because juries are composed of everyday people who come from an assortment of occupational backgrounds, the judge provides the jury with instructions to help the jury apply the correct laws in the case. Examples of common jury errors include:

• jury selection errors
• confusing jury instructions
• incorrect jury instructions
• jury tampering
• jury bias

Your attorney will review every aspect of the jury and how the court interacted with the jury to determine whether an error may have occurred. If an error resulted in the jury wrongfully convicting you, your case may be overturned on appeal.

SENTENCING ERRORS AFTER A FEDERAL CONVICTION

Even if you are 100 percent guilty of a federal offense, the penalties the court imposes must be within the legal sentencing guidelines for the offense and cannot be excessive. The Eighth Amendment prohibits courts from imposing excess, cruel, or unusual punishment if a defendant is convicted for a crime. A federal defense attorney may challenge a court’s sentencing in any case, but in certain cases, attorneys are especially likely to appeal the sentence. Federal defense attorneys are more likely to appeal the defendant’s sentence if:

• the defendant is legally insane
• the defendant is a minor
• the case involves a capital offense
• the sentence is legally incorrect

Certain federal offenses have mandatory minimum sentences. In certain situations, a federal court may be able to deviate from mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Your federal defense attorney can recognize whether your case qualifies for an exception to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Excessive sentencing is not limited to crimes for which a federal court imposes a prison sentence. If you believe you may have been ordered by a federal sentencing court to pay an excessive fine, your attorney can appeal the sentence.

Miami Shores defense lawyer for federal appeals

Although attorneys undergo rigorous training and have their respective strengths, lawyers are not all created equally. When filing a federal appeal, we recommend choosing a lawyer who is thoroughly experienced and delivers compassionate customer service. In addition to knowing the law, it is also important that your attorney be able to handle the pressure of writing compelling appellate briefs and possibly being requested to present an oral argument before an appellate court judge. Joffe Law is one of South Florida’s leading federal defense law firms. We are committed to helping people fight for justice even after they have been convicted in a federal trial court. Whether you are interested in filing a federal appeal or if you would like to know more about other post-conviction relief options, we are here to help you feel informed and to provide the best legal solutions throughout the criminal law process. Contact Joffe Law to learn more about our track record in federal appellate cases in Miami Shores and surrounding areas.