Fundamental error

Last updated

Fundamental error is a legal term provided by United States Courts to describe an error which occurs whenever a judgement violates a federal fundamental right. In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts within the United States may define fundamental error rules independently of the federal courts. State fundamental error rules may include errors which violate rights in additional to those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but these rules may not infringe upon federal fundamental rights. [1] Any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

Contents

Judicial errors

A fundamental error is a type of legal or judicial error. A judicial error is a mistake by a judge or court. If a majority of a reviewing court, such as an appellate court, finds an error or errors which impacts the result, the higher court may reverse the lower court's error in whole or in part (the entire judgment or a part of it), and remand (send it back) with instructions to the lower court.

There are various types of errors which fall under two groups: harmless errors and plain errors. Errors which have no prejudicial impact on the rights of a party are deemed harmless errors. Higher courts will not reverse or remand the lower court's decision for harmless errors. A plain error is an error that is obvious and affects "the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings". [2] Plain errors are typically reversible errors. Higher courts will always reverse or remand the lower court's decision for reversible errors.

Fundamental errors are both plain errors and reversible errors. Fundamental errors are similar to substantial errors; however, the definition of a "substantial error" may differ slightly among the courts. A fundamental error is consistent among all US Courts as these errors violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. In other words, all substantial errors are not necessarily fundamental errors, but all fundamental errors are substantial errors. [3]

Errors affecting fundamental rights

Courts often review questions of whether a fundamental error occurred in post-conviction proceedings, such as a direct appeal, the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of coram nobis. Fundamental error, as a rule, is an extremely difficult claim to succeed in an appeal. [4] Congress and state legislatures may enact regulations on these proceeding, such as time limits for the filing post-conviction motions, in efforts to reduce judicial caseloads. In Murray v. Carrier, the Supreme Court ruled that the concept of fundamental error applies to those cases in which the defendant was probably ... actually innocent." The Court then specified that "in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default". [5]

A petitioner may lose their chance to claim a violation of his or her Fundamental rights if there is a procedural default on the claim. Some procedural defaults include intentionally waiving their right to make the claim, or not filing the claim in a timely manner. If state courts provide adequate means of challenging federal fundamental errors, then a procedural default may not be appealed to a federal court. However, if state courts do not provide adequate means of challenging the errors, then a federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. [1] The Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Thompson that a petitioner who failed to comply with a timeliness requirement in a state court could nevertheless plead their claims on the merits in federal court if the petitioner could show that "failure to consider the claims [would] result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." [6]

Application in United States Federal Case Law

A fundamental error occurs whenever a defendant was probably actually innocent. In Murray v. Carrier, the Supreme Court ruled that the concept of "fundamental miscarriage of justice" applies to those cases in which the defendant was probably actually innocent." [5] That concern is reflected, for example, in the "fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free". [7]

A fundamental error occurs whenever there is a failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged offense. In United States v. McClelland, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that "the failure to properly instruct the jury on [the required] element of a crime constitutes fundamental error". [8]

A fundamental error occurs whenever a defendant stands convicted of conduct that is not criminal. In United States v. Stoneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a fundamental error occurs where a defendant stands convicted of conduct that is not criminal. If a defendant is convicted and punished for act that law does not make criminal, it "inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice" and presents "exceptional circumstances" which justify collateral relief. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 6 votes to 3 that a claim of actual innocence does not entitle a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief by way of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence.

Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript.

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), is a Supreme Court case involving Harry Lee Williams' conviction of assault on his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. He was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying being tried in a prison uniform violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes and Williams’ right to due process was violated. The Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the conviction, on June 21, 1976.

Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case, which held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed if members of their race were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted them, even if they were convicted following an otherwise fair trial.

In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, they can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his procedurally defaulted Fourth Amendment claim in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.

A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 24, 1991. The Court held that the petitioner, convicted murderer Roger Keith Coleman, was barred from raising his claims of federal constitutional violations in a federal habeas court, because he had previously procedurally defaulted these claims in state habeas proceedings. This default had occurred because Coleman's lawyers inadvertently filed their notice of appeal three days later than required by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

References

  1. 1 2 Lowe, Thayne G. (September 1985). "Ake v. Oklahoma: The New "Fundamental Error" Exception to Wainwright v, Sykes ". BYU Law Review. 1985 (3). Digital Commons: 559–571. Retrieved 2016-12-29.
  2. ↑ United States v. Young , 470U.S.1 , 15(1985).
  3. ↑ State v. Henderson, 210Ariz.561 , 567(2005).
  4. ↑ Gersten, David M. " The Case of Fundamental Error & The Big Bad Bullet". Law.com. ALM Network of Legal Publications. Retrieved 2016-12-29.
  5. 1 2 Murray v. Carrier, 477U.S.478 , 495, 496(1986).
  6. ↑ Coleman v. Thompson , 501U.S.722 , 750(1991).
  7. ↑ In re Winship , 397U.S.358 , 372(1970)(Harlan, J., concurring).
  8. ↑ United States v. McClelland, 941F.2d999 , 1000(9th Cir.1991).
  9. ↑ United States v. Stoneman, 870F.2d102 , 105(3rd Cir.1989).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.