Sample of one of my appellate brief's, part Thirteen
ARGUMENT
Due Process rights under the US Constitution as well as the 6th amendment right to confront one’s accuser (applied to the states through the 14th Amendment (see Douglas V. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 415)) are fundamental rights guaranteed to all defendants in criminal matters in every jurisdiction in the United States of America.
Regarding the right to confront one’s accuser, the US Supreme Court held in Delaware v. Van Arsdall (475 U.S. 673 (1986)): “While the trial court's denial of respondent's opportunity to impeach the prosecution witness for bias violated respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause, such ruling is subject to harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (386 U.S. 18 (1967)). The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, including the importance of the witness' testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradictory testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case.” (Delaware v. Van Arsdall p.681-684). In order to find that the errors of the Trial Court were “harmless” errors, this reviewing court must say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
In the case at bar, because a proper answer and a return was never filed by the Trial Court and nor was a proper record of the minutes of the trial ever compiled, is it is impossible for the “reviewing court [to] say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt…” (Ibid.). In other words, because the reviewing court (the Appellate Term) in this case does not have the minutes or record to be able to establish that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, there is in fact a reasonable doubt of harmless error and thus it must be reversible error.
It is therefore established that Appellant was denied his Due Process rights under the US Constitution as well as his right to confront his accuser under the 6th amendment - applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. Thus, the Court is mandated to reverse the Appellant’s conviction.
.
|
