Abstract
The many consequences of "constitutionalizing" the right to appeal become evident only when one answers certain underlying questions about the nature of an appeal. What are the essential elements of an appeal? Why should we view the criminal defendant's right to appeal as an element of due process of law? Part II of this Article seeks to develop a theoretical due process framework for use in deciding when the right to appeal under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution has been unconstitutionally abridged or denied. Part III contains an analysis of oral argument as an essential element of the right to appeal. Finally, parts IV through VII discuss some of the possible consequences flowing from the constitutionalization of the right to appeal in criminal cases.
Recommended Citation
James E. Lobsenz, A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction, 8 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 375 (1985).
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons
