Alternative Procedures for Reducing Delays in Criminal Appeals: Sacramento, Springfield, and Rhode Island, 1983-1984

Identifying a “Miscarriage of Justice”: Factors Influencing a Successful Appeal Against a Guilty Plea Conviction in Australia

“…Having legal representation during the appeal process emerged as the most significant predictor of having a guilty plea conviction set aside, with applicants represented by legal aid having the highest likelihood of success. While scholars often assume that privately retained lawyers would have greater success on appeal than public defenders (Chapper & Hanson, 1989; King & Heise, 2019), these findings support prior literature that shows publicly funded defense lawyers can provide more effective representation on appeal (Heise et al, 2017). Although the bivariate analyses supported our assumption that self-represented defendants at the time of pleading guilty would be more likely to successfully appeal their conviction, this did not emerge as significant when controlling for other factors in the multivariate analysis.…”

“…While appellate courts hear the grounds of appeal raised by defendants arguing why their conviction should be overturned, the outcome of a criminal appeal can also be influenced by a range of factors extrinsic to the legal arguments raised. This has been demonstrated in several studies, conducted mostly in the United States, which have empirically examined factors that may be correlated with a successful appeal, finding that judicial decision-making can be influenced by a range of legal and extra-legal factors (e.g., see Chapper & Hanson, 1989;Heise et al, 2017;King & Heise, 2019;Kuang & Liang, 2015). For instance, research suggests that defendant characteristics may influence the outcome of an appeal, with the race of the appellant (Williams, 1995a) and criminal history (Ruddell & Kmiech, 2000) being found to be significantly associated with the outcome of an appeal.…”

“…This may support the contention that appellate courts can fear community backlash for overturning convictions of serious crimes (Davies, 1982), particularly for those who have previously admitted guilt. However, it may also reflect the increased scrutiny more serious offenses tend to undergo during the original court proceedings, and it may be assumed that errors or mistakes are more likely to be identified and corrected in this process (Chapper & Hanson, 1989).…”

“…However, there are inconsistent findings regarding the type of legal representation on appeal and case outcome. While it is often assumed that a privately retained lawyer may have greater success than public defenders, given their increased resources and incentives (Chapper & Hanson, 1989; King & Heise, 2019), only one study in New York City provides support for this contention (Wasserman, 1990). Other studies in the United States have found no significant differences between the type of counsel and appeal outcome (Buller, 2015; King & Heise, 2019; Williams, 1995b), while Heise et al (2017) found that publicly funded defense lawyers consistently achieved more favorable results on appeal than private defense lawyers.…”

“…Existing literature also suggests a relationship between the type of offense and the outcome of an appeal, with research finding that more serious offenses that entail more severe sentences are generally less likely to win on appeal (Chapper & Hanson, 1989; Davies, 1982; Heise et al, 2017; King & Heise, 2019; Neubauer, 1991; Ruddell & Kmiech, 2000). Based on interviews with the intermediate court of appeal judges in the United States, Davies (1982) suggests that appellate judges may be reluctant to overturn more serious offenses due to a fear of adverse public reaction, while Chapper and Hanson (1989) suggest that such findings may reflect greater care and attention paid by trial judges in more serious cases.…”