Does Procedural Due Process Make a Difference? A Study of Second Trials

• NCJ Number: 79801
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 65 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1981) Pages: 136-141
• Author(s): R T Roper; A P Melone
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 7 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study examined 1,159 cases remanded by the Federal appellate courts between fiscal years 1975 and 1979 to determine whether procedural rights made a difference in the treatment of defendants.

Abstract

The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that the appellate process erroneously permits convicted persons to appeal their cases time and time again on technical errors, thus delaying justice and overburdening the judicial system. National surveys have shown that this skeptical view of due process rights is shared by many Federal judges. This study hypothesized that changes in outcomes between the first and second trial would indicate that procedural rights possess some functional utility and are more than a process for satisfying idealistic concerns. Data on due process violations such as illegal search and seizure and the right to counsel were analyzed from 1,159 remands issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1975 and 1979. In 51.1 percent of the cases, the appellate court remand ultimately led to a different decision in the second trial. This finding demonstrates that procedural rights do make a substantive difference and are something more than a full employment act for attorneys. Over 85 percent of the eventual acquittals of defendants resulted from motions filed by U.S. attorneys, suggesting that many of these cases should never have been prosecuted. When the second trial resulted in final verdicts, the prosecution won almost three out of every four cases. This contradicts the popular view that the judicial process favors the criminally accused over the forces of law and order. Procedural rights are not only genuine protections but also contribute to the appearance of objectivity and impartiality in the justice system. Additional research should focus on the impact of specific due process rights on outcomes while controlling for other trial characteristics. A table and 17 footnotes are provided.