In search of the lost retrial: A critical analysis of the procedural resolution for appeals against convictions in Federal Criminal Procedure Code of Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i3.1082Keywords:
Due Process, Innocentrism, Presumption of Innocence, Procedural Justice, RetrialAbstract
This article presents a normative argument against the ban on retrial in the appellate stage in the Federal Criminal Procedure Code of the Argentine Republic. According to the article, this rule results in only factually innocent appellants being able to seek a review after conviction. The rationale behind the article bonds this rule with the phenomenon of Innocentrism and the defense of actual innocence as the primary value of the criminal process. To this end, the article analyses both the representative literature of the Innocence Movement and its reform proposals, and the critiques of these. With this theoretical framework, the article argues that a series of values identified with the concept of legal innocence and due process do not receive due attention in the appellate stage in the Federal Criminal Procedure Code of Argentina. Lastly, the article posits that the provision of retrial would broaden the possibilities for adequate resolution for different cases of injustice in the criminal process.
Downloads
References
ANDERSON, Helen. Revising Harmless Error: Making Innocence Relevant to Direct Appeals. Texas Wesleyan Law Review. Vol. 17, p. 391-402, 2011. https://doi.org/10.37419/TWLR.V17.I4.1
ANDRÉS IBANEZ, Perfecto. Tercero en discordia. Jurisdicción y juez del estado constitucional. Madrid: Trotta, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2016.3300
BANDES, Susan. Framing Wrongful Convictions. Utah Law Review. Vol. 5, p. 5-24, 2008. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1034472
BARRY, Jordan. Prosecuting The Exonerated: Actual Innocence And The Double Jeopardy Clause. Stanford Law Review. Vol. 64, No. 3., p. 535-588, 2012. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41511100
CASTILLO VAL, Ignacio. Enjuiciando al proceso penal chileno desde el inocentrismo (algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes). Política Criminal Vol. 8, p. 249-313, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33992013000100007
DAMASKA, Mirjan. Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 506-589, 1973. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311301
DIAZ, Ernesto Matías. La tensión entre el derecho al recurso de la víctima y las garantías constitucionales del imputado en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación. Revista de Derecho Penal y Procesal Penal, 1121, 2014.
DIAZ, Ernesto Matías. Sobre la verdad y la protección de la inocencia en el proceso penal. Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2017.
DIAZ, Ernesto Matías. Condenas erróneas en los Estados Unidos. Análisis de la cuestión desde el ámbito recursivo del sistema de justicia penal. Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2019.
DRIPPS, Donald. Beyond the Warren Court and Its Conservative Critics: Toward a Unified Theory of Constitutional Criminal Procedure. University of Michigan Journal Law Reform. Vol. 23, p. 591-640, 1990. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol23/iss4/2
DUFF, Antony. Sobre el castigo. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2015.
DUFF, Antony; FARMER, Lindsay; MARSHALL, Sandra; TADROS, Victor. Trial on Trial. Vol. 3. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Los derechos en serio. Barcelona: Ariel, 1984.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Una cuestión de principios. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2012.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Justicia para erizos. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2014.
FERRER BELTRÁN, Jordi. La valoración racional de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2007.
FERRER BELTRÁN, Jordi. Sobre el deber de motivación de las decisiones probatorias y el juicio por jurados. La sentencia V.R.P., V.P.C. y otros v.s Nicaragua de la Corte IDH. Quaestio facti, p. 359-382, 2020. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i0.22381
FINDLEY, Keith. Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice: How the Innocence Movement Mergers Crime Control and Due Process. Texas Tech Law Review. Vol. 41, p. 133-175, 2008. Disponible en: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309346882_Toward_a_new_paradigm_of_criminal_justice_How_the_innocence_movement_merges_crime_control_and_due_process>.
FINDLEY, Keith. Innocence Protection in the Appellate Process. Marquette Law Review, p. 591-636, 2009. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss2/10
FINDLEY, Keith. Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search of Truth. New York Law School Journal. Vol. 56, p. 911-941, 2012. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1904588
GARRET, Brandon. Innocence, Harmless Error, and Federal Wrongful Conviction Law. Wisconsin Law Review, p. 35-114, 2005. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3867
GARRET, Brandon. Judging Innocence. Columbia Law Review. Vol. 108, p. 55, 2008. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3863
GIVELBER, Daniel. The Adversary System and Historical Accuracy. Can we do better? In: WESTERVELT, Saundra; HUMPHREY, John. Wrongly convicted. Perspectives on failed justice. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, p. 253-268, 2011.
GREY, Thomas. Procedural fairness and substantive rights. Nomos. Vol. 18 DUE PROCESS, p. 182-205, 1977. http://dx.doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814768884.003.0011
GROSS, Samuel. Convicting the Innocent. Annual Review of Law & Social Science. Vol 4, p. 173-192, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172300
HO, Lai Hock. A Philosophy of Evidence Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
HO, Lai Hock. The Presumption of Innocence as a Human Right. In: ROBERTS, Paul; HUNTER, Jill. Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 259-281, 2012.
HUGHES, Emily. Innocence Unmodified. North Carolina Law Review, p. 1083-1124, 2011. http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol89/iss4/2
JACKSON, John; SUMMERS, Sarah. The Internalisation of Criminal Evidence. Beyond the Common Law and Crivil Law Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridege University Press, 2012.
JONES, Cynthia. A reason to doubt: The supression of evidence and the inference of innocence. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 100, p. 415-474, 2010. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol100/iss2/3
KITAI, Rinat. Protecting the guilty. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, p. 1163-1187, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2003.6.2.1163
LAFAVE, Wayne; Israel, Jerold; King, Nancy; Kerr, Orin. Principles of Criminal Procedure: Post-Investigation, St. Pauls: West, 2009.
LARKIN, Paul & STIMSON, Charles, Remedying Criminal Trial Errors: Retrial or Acquittal in Smith v. United States? Federalist Society Review, Vol. 24, p. 28-53, 2023. Disponible en: < Disponible en: < https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/remedying-criminal-trial-errors-retrial-or-acquittal-in-smith-v-united-states >.
MAIER, Julio. Derecho procesal penal. Fundamentos. Tomo I. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2004.
MAIER, Julio. Derecho Procesal Penal. Parte General Tomo III. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2013.
MEDWED, Daniel. Inocentrism. University of Illinois Law Review. Nro. 5, p. 1549-1572, 2008. Disponible en: <https://illinoislawreview.org/print/volume-2008-issue-5/innocentrism/>.
MEYERSON, Denise. The Moral Justification for the Right to Make Full Answer and Defence. Oxofrd Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 35, p. 237-265, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu024
MOSTELLER, Robert. Why Defense Attorneys Cannot, but Do, Care About Innocence. Santa Clara Law Review. Vol. 50, p. 1-78, 2010. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1381003
MOSTELLER, Robert. Failures of the American Adversarial Systema to Protect the Innocent and Conceptual Advantages in the Inquisitorial Design for Investigative Fairnes. North Carolina Journal of International Law, p. 320-364, 2011. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1523431
PACKER, Herbert. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968.
PASTOR, Daniel. La Nueva Imagen de la Casación Penal. Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2001.
PASTOR, Daniel. La casación española y la sentencia integradora compleja. Un caso inteligente de superación de los límites tradicionales del recurso. LA LEY. Revista Jurídica Argentina -C - Supl. Penal, p. 50-55, 2004.
PASTOR, Daniel. Tendencias: hacia una aplicación más imparcial del derecho penal. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi, 2012.
PÉREZ BARBERÁ, Gabriel. Problemas y perspectivas de las teorías expresivas de la pena. Una justificación deontológica de la pena como institución. Indret. Revista para el análisis del derecho, p. 1-43, 2014. Disponible en: <https://indret.com/problemas-y-perspectivas-de-las-teorias-expresivas-de-la-pena/>.
PÉREZ BARBERÁ, Gabriel. Prueba legítima y verdad en el proceso penal I: la independencia metafísica de la verdad. Isonomía. Núm. 52, p. 5-29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i52.173.
PÉREZ BARBERÁ, Gabriel, Recursos. In MAIER, Julio, PASTOR, Daniel, PÉREZ BARBERÁ, Gabriel & SARRABAYROUSE, Eugenio, Derecho Procesal Penal. T. IV. Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2023.
PIZZI, William, Trials without Truth: Why Our System of criminal trials has become an expensive falilure and what we need to rebuild it, New York: N.Y. Univ. Press, 1999.
RAWLS, John. Teoría de la Justicia. Segunda edición. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1995.
RAYMOND, Margaret. The Problem with Innocence. Cleveland State Law Review. Vol. 49, p. 449-463, 2001. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol49/iss3/10
RESNICK, David. Due Process and Procedural Justice. Nomos. Vol. 18 DUE PROCESS, p. 206-228, 1977. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814768884.003.0012
RISINGER, Michael. Unsafe Verdicts: The Need for Reformed Standards for the Trial and Review of Factual Innocence Claims. Houston Law Review. Vol. 41, p. 1281-1336, 2004. https://ssrn.com/abstract=610665
RISINGER, Michael; RISINGER, Lesley. Innocence is Different: Taking Innocence into Account in Reforming Criminal Procedure. New York Law School Review, p. 869-908, 2012. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1783941
ROACH, Kent. Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation. Vol. 35, p. 388-446, 2010. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1619124
ROSLER, Andrés. Si Ud. quiere una garantía, compre una tostadora. En Letra: Derecho penal. Año III, número 5, p. 62-102, 2017.
SARRABAYROUSE, Eugenio. La evolución hitórica del principio “in dubio pro reo”en Alemania. Consecuencias para la determinación de su ámbito de aplicación. In LASCANO, Carlos (Dir.), Nuevas formulaciones en las ciencias penales. Homenaje a Claus Roxin. Córdoba: Lerner, p. 823-854, 2001.
SARRABAYROUSE, Eugenio. La duda en el proceso y en el derecho penal. In LEDESMA, Ángela, El debido proceso penal, Vol 6. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi, p. 21-66, 2020.
STEIKER, Carol; STEIKER, Jordan. The Seduction of Innocence: The Atraction and Limitations of the Focus on Innocence in Capital Punishment Law and Advocacy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 95, p. 587-624, 2005. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol95/iss2/7
STUNTZ, William. The Uneasy relationship Between Criminal Procedure y Criminal Justice. The Yale Law Journal, p. 6-76, 1997. https://doi.org/10.2307/797276
THOMAS III, George. The Supreme Court On Trial: How American Justice System Sacrifices Innocent Defendants. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
ULVÄNG, Magnus. Criminal and Procedural Fairness: Some Challenges to the Presumption of Innocence. Criminal Law and Philosophy. Vol. 8 (2), p. 469-484, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-013-9259-0
VARGAS, Nicolás. Ne bis in idem y juicio de reenvío. Buenos Aires: Didot, 2023.
VELEDA, Diana. Sobre a possível (in)variabilidade do estandar de prova penal. Consequencias de uma aproximaçao nao puramente utilitarista. In: VAZQUEZ, Carmen; DE PAULA RAMOS, Vitor. Debatendo com Ferrer. Standars de prova e subjetivismo em xeque. Londrina: Thoth, 2023.
ZALMAN, Marvin. An Integrated Model of Wrongful Conviction. Albany Law Review. Vol. 74, p. 101-160, 2011. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2899488
ZALMAN, Marvin & GRUNEWALD, Ralph, Reinventing the Trial: The Innocence Revolution and Proposals to Modify the American Criminal Trial, Tex. A&M L. Rev., Vol. 3, p. 189-259, 2015. https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V3.I2.2
ZIFFER, Patricia. El derecho al recurso y los límites del juicio de reenvío. In: BERTOLINO, Pedro. Estudios en homenaje al Dr. Francisco J. DAlbora Buenos Aires: Lexis Nexis, p. 501-522, 2005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ernesto Matías Díaz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
