Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There are more who don't. Besides there are only a few people involved whose opinion matter, and you, me, etc. aren't in that group - the juries and appeal court judges are.
The juries who have reviewed the evidence didn't agree. None of the appeal courts have agreed. And these are the people who needed to be convinced that there was a reasonable doubt that MacDonald did it. He and his lawyers haven't been able to do that to the people who matter - all the analysis here is wasted effort.
The problem is that justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. If a surgical operation is carried out by somebody who is not medically qualified I am entitled to an opinion about that. Judge Dupree was not an extremely competent trial judge. He was biased. It was a bad court. There was prosecutor misconduct and lies, damned lies and mistakes and inventions at the MacDonald trial. The federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed.
The best defense for MacDonald would be for the real culprits, like Mazerolle and his pals, to tell the police and MacDonald lawyers exactly what happened, instead of keeping their mouths shut, and trying to focus the blame on to MacDonald.
Mistakes are made and serious ones. Sometimes the wrong man or woman gets convicted and the real culprits go free, as happened in the Darlie Routier case and the MacDonald case, and which nearly happened in the JonBenet case.There are cases in America where innocent people have been convicted, but those cases are rarely given much publicity in the mainstream media, or Fox News, in order to sway the public into thinking 'aren't our police wonderful' as well as judges and juries and the Justice Department, and to give them immunity from criticism.
There is a bit about the appeals procedure MacDonald has to go through on the internet:
Appeal Procedure
The party appealing is called the appellant, or sometimes the petitioner. The other party is the appellee or the respondent. The appeal is instituted with the filing of a notice of appeal. This filing marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a brief, a written argument containing that side's view of the facts and the legal arguments upon which they rely in seeking a reversal of the trial court. The appellee then has a specified time to file an answering brief. The appellant may then file a second brief answering the appellee's brief.
Sometimes, appeals courts make their decision only on the basis of the written briefs. Sometimes, they hear oral arguments before deciding a case. Often the court will ask that the case be set for oral argument, or one of the parties will request oral argument. At oral argument, each side's attorney is given a relatively brief opportunity to argue the case to the court, and to answer questions posed by the judges. In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, an hour is set for oral argument of most cases, which gives each side's lawyers about half an hour to make their oral argument and answer questions. In the federal courts of appeals, the attorneys are often allotted less time than that - 10- or 15-minute arguments are common.
The appellate court determines whether errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. It generally will reverse a trial court only for an error of law. Not every error of law, however, is cause for a reversal. Some are harmless errors that did not prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial. For example, in a criminal case a higher court may conclude that the trial judge gave a legally improper instruction to the jury, but if the mistake were minor and in the opinion of the appellate court had no bearing on the jury's finding, the appellate court may hold it a harmless error and let a guilty verdict stand. However, an error of law, SUCH AS ADMITTING IMPROPER EVIDENCE, may be determined to be harmful and therefore reversible error.
After a case is orally argued or otherwise presented for judgment, the appeals court judges will meet in conference to discuss the case. Appellate courts often issue written decisions, particularly when the decision deals with a new interpretation of the law, establishes a new precedent, etc. At the conference, one judge will be designated to write an opinion. The opinion may go through several drafts before a majority of the court agrees with it. Judges disagreeing with the majority opinion may issue a dissenting opinion. Judges agreeing with the result of a majority decision but disagreeing with the majority's reasoning may file a concurring opinion. Occasionally the appeals court will simply issue an unsigned opinion. These are called per curiam (by the court).
If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction).
If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will usually send the case back to a lower court ( remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that
a new trial be held,
the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected,
the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court.
Last edited: