The Appellate Process in United States Courts

In the United States, a case undergoes a process before it reaches the Supreme Court. In fact, not case all cases reach the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the US. A criminal case goes from the lower courts and progressively goes into higher courts depending on the facts, and the principles lay out by the law. Primarily, a case is brought in at the lower court as a criminal case whereby the offense is against the constitution. The case is heard, and the judges in the lower court make a ruling. If the defendant is dissatisfied, then they initiate the appellate process through their lawyers by seeking the intervention of a higher court. A look at the facts, rulings at appellate levels, key legal questions and the decisions of the Supreme Court in two recent criminal cases gives clear insight on the US appellate process.

The Slender Man Stabbing Case 

In slender man stabbing case, two 12-year-old girls were accused of stabbing their age mate severally almost murdering her. The Two girls, Anisa Weier and Morgan Geyser, stabbed baited Payton Leutner to the woods for hiding and seek with the intention of stabbing her to appease the slender an. Slender man is a fictional character perceived to be a tall shadow of a man in a black suit prowling on children and killing them. The defendants believed that by killing their friend, they would become allies to the slender man and live in his mansion and had plotted to kill her for five months. The victim, Leutner survived the stabbings, and the defendants were prosecuted and charged with an attempt to commit second-degree murder and were charged as adults. Geyser pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit first-degree murder and was sentenced to mental health unit for 40 years. In 2017, Weier pleaded guilty as an associate to the crime of second-degree murder due to mental defect and was found not guilty due to her psychological state at the time of committing the crime and was sentenced to 25 years in a psychiatric facility (Cambridge & Christodoulou, 2018).

There are a number of legal issues that arose in the slender man stabbing case. One was the gauging the liability of the Creepypasta website that developed an idea and introduced the slender man to children including the defendants in the case. The appellate court would not find the website liable though as the website argued that it was purely a fictional site and the likelihood of people believing fiction as hard facts are beyond the website. Another legal issue that arose was whether the defendants should be prosecuted as adults or as juvenile considering that they committed a top-level crime at the age of twelve. The appellate court ruling was that the case would be charged in an adult court given that the case was an intentional attempt to homicide (Snider, 2014). The majority opinion from the court of appeal held the decision of the district caught judge decision to charge the defendants in adult court (Vielmetti, 2016) I agree with the appellate decision to charge the case in adult court given the intent and knowledge of the defendant that they were stabbing Leutner with the intent to kill her. Wisconsin law provides that a person over the age of ten is to be charged as an adult for severe crimes with a possibility of the case moving to juvenile court. The case was a severe one given that the defendants intended to kill Leutner and aging 12 years by law are eligible to be charged in adult court for an attempt to commit first-degree murder.

Steven l. Turner Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Appellee 

Initially, Steve Turner was charged in a Kentucky district court on five charges a felony charge of trafficking in controlled substances in the second degree, three charges in misdemeanor charges in regard to trafficking in and the fifth charge as the first-degree persistent offender. Turner was found guilty of the felony charge and the misdemeanor charges without consideration of the fifth charge as a persistent offender by a grand jury. The penalty phase was then divided into two to determine the approach to the sentence. The jury was tasked with determining if Turner was a subsequent offender or not which would determine the length of the sentence according to KRs statute KRS 218A.1413(2)(b)1/2. The jury found Turner to be a subsequent offender of the statute and recommended a maximum sentence for the subsequent offender as per KRS 218A.1413 (2)(b)2 of five years. Commonwealth provided evidence of two prior felony convictions to support the fifth charge of Turner as a subsequent offender. Turner was therefore found guilty of the fifth charge as a persistent offender. Turner after that raised claims of error in regard to the penalty phase of his trial for which Turner sought appellate review. Firstly, Turner claimed that enhancement under persistent felony offender (PFO) statute is prohibited. Secondly, Turner pointed out that the evidence of prior offense presented by commonwealth was insufficient to prove his PFO status. Thirdly, Turner pointed out that the non-unanimous nature of his PFO status verdict was illegal under Kentucky law. Lastly, Turner claimed that the circuit court established case law during the penalty stage through allowing evidence on his prior offenses against the due process (FindLaw, 2017). 

SCOTUS disagreed with Turner first claim of error of enhancement under PFO citing the generally accepted comprehension of that language even in the statute has meaning in the context it is applied. The second error on insufficiency of evidence was disregarded in that Turner had violated KRS 218A.1413(1)(c) and the subsections and hence penalty for the second offense was not altered. SCOTUS claimed that to affect Turners claims it would have to eliminate some part of KRS 532.080(10) which it did not have the powers to execute. The Supreme Court held that Turner claims were an absurd interpretation of the law and found error analysis for the mentioned claims unnecessary and hence upheld the ruling and sentence of Bell Circuit court of Turner's case through an undisputed opinion (FindLaw, 2017). I agree with the decision reached upon by the Supreme Court. The errors provided by Turner were due to misinterpretation of the statute. The evidence provided by the prosecutor was sufficient to show the Turner was indeed a persistent felony offender in regard to the statute and hence justifying the ruling by the circuit court. On the other hand, the case laws cited by Turner to support his claims were inapplicable in Turner's case. 

In conclusion, the two cases transparently portray the appellate process. Criminal cases are dealt with by district court that carries out the hearing and passes a ruling. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on criminal cases apart from on an appellate capacity. The Supreme Court need not hear the case and has the absolute choice to decide if to have a hearing for an appealed case or not. SCOTUS role is to review the facts as presented in the district court, review the due process used to arrive at the ruling and offer its decision supported by its reasoning. Additionally, the appellate process ay address only a part of the legal process to help the district court arrive at a conclusion on an appealed matter that is relevant to the final ruling. For instance, in the Slender man stabbing case the appeal was on the decision to charge the defendants in adult or juvenile courts. Therefore the SCOTUS acts as a consultant instead of the lower courts. The Supreme Court has the power to uphold or reject the ruling of the lower courts and provide a rationale for its decision upon which the lower court acts. The SCOTUS is the final court in the appellate process, and its decision is final. 

References

Cambridge, E. & Christodoulou, H. (2018). Slender man stabbers. What is slender man stabbing case? Who are Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser and why did they stab Payton Leutner? The Sun, News Group Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved on 5 June 2018 from https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2643061/slender-man-stabbing-anissa-weier-morgan-geyser-payton-leutner-meme/.

FindLaw. (2017). Court of Appeals of Kentucky: Steven L. Turner Appellant V. Commonwealth Of Kentucky Appellee NO. 2016-CA-000119-MR . Retrieved on 5 June 2018 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-court-of-appeals/1861271.html.

Snider, B. (2014). In 'Slenderman' Stabbing, 2 Girls Charged as Adults. FindLaw . Retrieved on 5 June 2018 from https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/06/in-slenderman-stabbing-2-girls-charged-as-adults.html

Vielmetti, B. (2016). Court of Appeals: Slender Man stabbing defendants stay in adult court. Journal Sentinel . Retrieved on 5 June 2018 from http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/court-of-appeals-slender-man-stabbing-defendants-stay-in-adult-court-b99767626z1-388368011.html/.