In an effort to somewhat combine my prior knowledge of wrongful convictions with the application of the appellate process and criminal appellate law, I searched for cases that had successful appeals in criminal cases of wrongful convictions.  The case of Mario Stinchcomb and Michael Woodfolk are particularly interesting because the appeals did not occur until nearly 15 years after the initial verdict was given down.  Understandably, this is not typical and is something I will revisit later in this review.  The National Registry of Exonerations put on by a partnership of colleges headed by the University of Michigan School of Law has record of every single exoneration case of wrongfully convicted people in the United States with a summary of the case, factors of the conviction, and the exoneration process for each one.  This is a resource I immediately went to after coming up with this plan as it is reliable, credible, and provides easily accessible and easily understandable information about each case.  This case study will help me understand the application of the criminal appeal process and how it can be used during trials.  This also pairs my work from the first semester to my plan for the second semester and is important to understand before my interview this Friday with a criminal lawyer with appellate specialty.

 

In this case, Stinchcomb and Woodfolk had an altercation with a woman named Jakesha Young.  When it escalated to slight violence with Stinchcomb allegedly slapping Young across the face, or at least pushing her according to a key witness in later trial proceedings, Young threatened to go get a gun.  She went down to her car where she grabbed her gun and shot up at the two other men who were on a second floor balcony before getting in the car and attempting to drive away.  As she did, Woodfolk fired a shot which went through the car roof and fatally hit Young in the head.  Young would die because of this incident making the charges against Stinchcomb and Woodfolk homicide charges. 

 

The argument of the prosecution was that Young simply fired shots into the air while Woodfolk shot to kill her in an act that did not constitute self defense.  Young’s driver, who had been identified as Jamario Ford, was never found and was presumed dead.  This was huge for the case because Ford was obviously a key witness that would be able to present heavily weighted testimony to the case.  Without Ford’s testimony, prosecutors would win the case and both men would be sentenced to life in prison without parole.  

 

Almost 15 years after the crime, the case found a new major spar as Jamario Ford was found, came forward, and worked with a legal team in Atlanta to write an affidavit which was used as grounds for an Extraordinary Motion for a New Trial, a motion in Georgia that calls for a complete retrial based on newly found evidence.  This was not an appellate measure and was submitted to the original trial court who upheld their decision and denied the motion.  This is important for me to understand because while this may seem like the start of appeal it is in fact still part of the trial court and was instead a measure to set up an appeal based on the likely denial of their motion by the court.  This is exactly what happened and the lawyer would then file a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia asking for the case to be reviewed and reopened so that Ford’s testimony could be heard.

 

The Supreme Court of Georgia would agree with this measure and order for a hearing where Ford could testify on the case.  As expected, Ford’s testimony would not only provide a a first hand witness who was not biased towards the defense, as he was Young's driver when she was shot, but also it provided corroboration with the testimony of Harris and the position of the defense that provided strong backing for their case while also casting major doubt into the case of the prosecution.  Because of the motions and appeals made to support Stinchcomb and Woodfolk, Ford’s testimony was allowed to be admitted and their convictions would eventually be reversed with both men being exonerated.  This case allows me to see a connection between criminal appellate law and wrongful convictions and allows me to see how lawyers go about using strategies to ensure their appeals have grounds and are likely to be successful as well as how appeals can be used to reverse convictions in court.  I feel that I need to continue to do these types of case reviews to develop a greater understanding of how appeals work and what the appellate process is actually like in practice.