Midterm Position Paper
In a system where the judiciary is mandated to ensure that both the legislature and executives are kept in check, every decision made by a higher court holds a lot of significance to society. Such decisions are the solution to various issues raised regarding penalties and due process. Moreover, they provide an alternative definition of how future court decisions should be made based on judicial review. The cases Meeks vs. McKune and the United States v. Poole provide good examples of the US appellate court’s work. Moreover, both cases represent violent crimes where the defendants claim not to have received the due process. However, despite these claims, this paper presents the argument that both appellate courts’ decisions to uphold the decisions made by the lower courts were correct.
In the case Meeks v. McKune, Meeks, the defendant claimed that there was a violation of his sixth amendment rights by the lower courts when they decided to admit the statement of the victim as part of the evidence. In other words, the defendant was trying to imply that he believed that the lower courts denied the right to a fair trial. Moreover, Meek’s appeal was mainly based on the premise that his actions were never predetermined, a key component that should be considered when a defendant is convicted for murder in the first-degree order like Meeks. However, the fact that Meeks never objected when the victim’s statement was admitted as evidence during the trial period implied that the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision. This is a decision I fully agree with because I believe that the court decision was within its purview.
In the second case, the United States Of America versus Conrad Dominic Poole, the appeal made by Poole based its argument on the idea that since it was a victimless crime, the victimized officer’s testimony had to be considered inadmissible. However, according to the appellate court’s findings, Poole’s “substantial rights” were never affected by the trial’s proceedings. Moreover, the appetite court reviewed this case based on technical grounds, intending to look for any errors to fulfill the court proceedings and habeas corpus. In other words, the appellate court was interested in the court’s functions and not the content of this case. Having found no errors, the appellate court upheld the decision made by the trial court. As such, the appellate court demonstrated trust in the decision made by the trial court.
These cases are crucial to American society because they demonstrate that the judiciary system functions appropriately as required by law. In both cases, the defendants exercise their right to appeal to the appellate court to establish that the trial court’s proceeding was correct. These decisions’ stability is based on the system’s set up and the ideology that the appellate court should not have reviewed the entire case. Given the fact that these cases were never overturned is a demonstration that the United States generally enjoys a stable society. Moreover, they provide an alternative definition of how future court decisions should be made based on judicial review.
References
Shumaker, Elisabeth A. Reginald Meeks, Petitioner (Appellant) v. David Mckune (Respondent). 1Dec. 2009,. Accessed 30 Sept. 2017.
Howard, Malcolm J. United states of America (Appellee) v. Conrad Dominic Poole (Appellant).18 Apr. 2007, . Accessed 30Sept. 2017.
