America’s Legal Systems’ Procedural Leviathan
An op-ed describing the procedural and appellate processes of the United States’s legal systems — using the federal courts and Pennsylvania United Judicial System as the primary examples.
By: Ian L. Courts, Esq.¹
The “life of a case” in the United States’s judicial systems — federal and state — has a long and labyrinthine existence. Most people who come into contact with the judicial systems of the United States are often overwhelmed by the complexities in the procedural postures of their cases. As I often say, the United States does not have one legal system but 51+ individual but interconnecting systems. One of the prominent similarities among the systems is their sinuous procedures. This article will briefly explain the “life of a case” — where it begins and where it ends (or continues!) Moreover, this article’s purpose is to highlight the systems' realities and bring additional light to the need for procedural reform in our criminal justice systems. Let’s buckle in; this discussion will be a rollercoaster!
The Direct Appeal Process
Probable Cause & Pleas-The Seed
Most cases begin with a determination either by a Grand Jury in federal cases or a preliminary (aka probable cause) hearing in state courts, such as Pennsylvania. The jury or judge examines the prosecutor’s proposed evidence and determines whether there is enough evidence of probability that the accused committed the crime. However, many criminal cases begin with a contractual agreement known as a plea bargain between the prosecutor and the accused, accepted or rejected by the trial judge. Whether the case begins via plea or a probable cause determination, the case is docketed and begins its life in the criminal justice system.
Trials & Sentencing
After the grand jury indicts or a judge finds probable cause, or a plea-bargain is signed and accepted, a case either goes to trial (indictment and probable cause) or sentencing (plea and after conviction). Trials come in two forms — (a) waiver trials where the accused waives his right to a trial by jury and concedes to allow a judge to determine their guilt or innocence; and (b) jury trials where a collection of one’s peers determines one’s guilt or innocence. (NOTE: Most cases are decided by waiver trial and not a jury trial.)
At the trial or plea negotiation conclusion, the sentencing judge will impose a sentence compliant with applicable statute and case law. Sentences will generally fall within a mitigated range, standard range, or an aggravated range. Depending upon the crime and its facts and any aggravating or mitigating factors, the judge will impose a sentence. The prosecutor and the accused have a right to present evidence to influence the judge’s discretion in sentencing. In many jurisdictions, such as Pennsylvania, the victim and their family have a right to share their experiences during the sentencing phase.
Post-sentence motions; and Appeals
Once a sentence has been imposed, the accused and/or the Commonwealth, if in Pennsylvania, has a right to contest the sentence or seek reconsideration or a new trial grant from the sentencing judge. In Pennsylvania, the party has 10 days to file a post-sentence motion (See 234 Pennsylvania Code Rule 720); in federal court, within 14 days, the court can by request of a party or sua spontae, correct a sentence, but generally, the accused may seek reconsideration or reduction in a sentence within 1 year of a sentence imposed. See Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Mandatory Appellate Review — Appeals of Right
Once the sentencing judge grants or denies a post-sentence motion or a party does not file a post-sentence motion, the party’s or a party may file a notice of appeal to usually an intermediate court of appeal, i.e., a federal circuit court of appeals, or if in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In both Pennsylvania and the federal system, a party has 30 days to file a direct appeal to either the Pennsylvania Superior Court (if a state criminal case); or the federal circuit court of appeal (if a federal criminal case).
Discretionary Appellate Review — Appeals by Permission
After the intermediate appellate court determines to either affirm or reverse the decision of the sentencing court, a party may usually seek discretionary review by their state’s supreme court, such as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; or the United States Supreme Court, if appealing from a federal circuit court of appeals decision. In Pennsylvania, a party has 30 days to file a petition for allowance of appeal (aka allocator). See 210 Pennsylvania Code Section 1113; in the federal system, a party has either 90 days to file a timely writ of certiorari. See 28 United States Code 2101. AS WITH MANY COURTS OF LAST RESORT, the US Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are not forced to hear all appeals and may deny review or grant review at their own whim. (NOTE: After a state supreme court decides an issue, a party has 90 days to file a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court.)
Post-Conviction Relief & Federal Habeas Corpus
In many jurisdictions, the state legislatures, or Congress, have provided a process codified in statute for post-conviction relief. Post-conviction relief can be sought after sentencing, if no appeal is filed, or after exhausting the appeal process. Most post-conviction statutes have a timeliness requirement, such as the 1-year requirement under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act, which imposes a timeframe for post-conviction claims to be brought or they are waived. Additionally, these post-conviction relief statutes require a party’s claims to fall with an enumerated list of claims and qualifications; if these are not met, a party may be denied relief.
Apart from and in addition to state post-conviction statutes, the federal United States Code provides post-conviction relief through habeas corpus relief. Habeas corpus relief provides, in many cases, a third layer of review for accused persons (especially if the case originated in the state system). Federal courts may review state and federal convictions and sentences and determine if relief is warranted; most of the time, relief for various reasons is denied.
Whether through a state post-conviction statute or federal habeas courts, appellate review is available and follows a similar path to the direct appeal process discussed above.
Our American judicial system is complex because it provides several opportunities for an accused to argue their case and attempt to seek relief. Our Frankenstein system does not guarantee relief but does ensure review. This article is not legal advice but is a descriptive tool that briefly highlights the procedural process of the American criminal justice system. For many, procedural hurdles will bar them from relief; however, these procedures ensure our system continues to operate — whether that operation is effective has rightly come under scrutiny within recent years. True criminal justice reform begins in the streets of activists, judicial chambers, legislative halls, and prosecutorial offices, but it normally ends or is seriously halted by arcane procedural hurdles. A change is due — we must update and reform our procedure to provide a more effective, equitable, transparent, and fair system that takes us much closer to our ideal “equal justice under the law.”
[1]: About the Author: Ian Courts is a young millennial attorney with expertise and a passion in American and international law and politics. Ian received his BA in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 2017, in 2020 he received his J.D. from North Carolina Central University School of Law, and in 2022 Ian received his LLM in International Criminal Law and Justice from the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Ian lives in Philadelphia where he is an appellate lawyer and the proud fur-dad of two American Cocker Spaniels.
