Making the Right Decision: A Position Paper on Two Court Decisions

In a political system where the judiciary holds the power to keep both the executive and the legislative branches on point with a system of checks and balances, each and every higher court decision bears importance to society. These decisions shape the answers to questions about justice, penalty, and due process. More particularly, they define how future courts are to be run – thanks to the institution of judicial review. Both of the cases discussed here, Meeks vs. McKune and United States v. Poole are examples of the United States appellate court at work. Both are cases of violent crimes, and of the defendant (and now appellant) making the case that they did not receive due process – known as a habeas petition. Despite these claims, this position paper argues that both appellate court decisions to uphold the lower courts’ decisions were, in fact, correct. This stems from both the nature of appellate courts in the United States and the facts of the individual cases. Each will be discussed in turn below.

The fundamental aspect of the judicial system that is needed for making a decision on the validity of these cases is an understanding of the purpose of state and federal appellate courts. As Jeffrey Lax states, these courts are most usually “restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were” (2007). Given this definition of the appellate court, the purview of these courts become much narrower. In these two court cases, each appellate court limited itself to this purview, reviewing only the actions of the lower court in relation to the due process owed to the defendant. This is, ultimately, what made these decisions the right ones.

In the first case, Meeks v. McKune, the defendant argued in appeals that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the lower court admitted the victim’s statement into evidence. The defendant’s argument was that the “prejudice outweighed the probative value” – this is jargon that essentially means he believes that the court denied him a fair trial (2009). Furthermore, Meeks’ appeal was based on the contention that his act was not premeditated – a necessary component if a defendant is to be convicted of first-degree murder, as Meeks was. However, the appellate court agrees with the lower court in that Meeks was given his due process – because Meeks did not object to the admission of the victim’s statement during the trial, the appellate court can only weigh whether it was admissible according to statute (2009). This is where this position paper agrees with the court – it was merely remaining within its purview.

The second case is very similar. Poole’s appeal was based on the argument that because he was a “victimless crime”, the testimony of the victimized officer was inadmissible (2007). However, the appellate court found that the trial’s proceedings did not affect Poole’s “substantial rights” – that is, his due process. The appellate court reviewed the case from a technical standpoint, looking for errors in the fulfillment of habeas corpus and of court proceedings. In a phrase, the appellate court was looking at the function of the court rather than the content of the case. Finding no errors, the court carried the decision (and sentence) of the trial court. In doing so, the appellate court placed its trust, so to speak, in the trial court.

This is the importance of these cases to the real world – they indicate a functioning, albeit deliberate, judicial system. Both defendants had the right to appeal, and the appellate courts found the proceedings of the trial courts correct. The stability comes from the set up of the system – and the idea that the appellate court ought not to review the entire case. The fact that these cases were not unnecessarily overturned denotes a more stable society as a whole. This, it would seem, is due in no small part to the function of the United States’ judicial system.

References

Gandhi, M. (2007). Gandhi on non-violence. T. Merton (Ed.). New York City, NY: New Directions Publishing.

Lax, J. R. (2007). Constructing legal rules on appellate courts. American Political Science Review. 101: (3). 591-604.

REGINALD MEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. DAVID MCKUNE, et al., Respondent. Case No. 09-3133

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS  607 F. Supp. 2d 1235; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CONRAD DOMINIC POOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Case No. 05-5049

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 241 Fed. Appx. 153; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18114