Revisión y Apelación de Sentencias de Muerte en Pensilvania

Explicación Simple

Cuando alguien es condenado a muerte, puede pedir que revisen su caso. Esto se hace a través de apelaciones directas y colaterales, donde se presentan argumentos para intentar cambiar la decisión.

Es como si en un partido de fútbol el equipo perdedor pidiera revisar las jugadas para ver si hubo errores del árbitro que cambiaron el resultado del juego.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan fue condenado a muerte por un crimen que no cometió. Después del juicio, Juan presenta una apelación directa para que el tribunal revise su caso. Si esa apelación no tiene éxito, puede intentar otra apelación colateral si encuentra nueva evidencia o si su abogado no hizo su trabajo correctamente.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

42 Pa.C.S. 9577 - Disposition And Appeal (a) Capital unitary review.--Review by the Supreme Court under section 9711(h) (relating to review of death sentence) shall comprise direct appeal and collateral appeal. The common pleas court order disposing of the petition under this subchapter shall constitute the final judgment for purposes of this review. (b) Briefs for petitioner.--Unless the petitioner has waived the right to new counsel on collateral review, separate briefs shall be filed for direct appeal and collateral appeal. The time for filing the collateral appeal brief shall begin to run from service of the petitioner's brief on direct appeal. (c) Brief for the Commonwealth.--The Commonwealth shall file a brief in response to the petitioner's direct and collateral appeal briefs. The time for filing the Commonwealth's brief shall begin to run from service of the petitioner's brief on collateral appeal. Suspension by Court Order.Section 9577 was suspended August 11, 1997, S.Ct. Order. 42 Pa.C.S. 9578 - Subsequent Petitions (a) Further review.--No further review shall be available unless a petition is filed under Subchapter B (relating to post conviction relief) alleging that: (1) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution of the United States or laws of the United States or the Constitution of Pennsylvania or laws of this Commonwealth; (2) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained in the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the tim