Mr. Chen was arrested by the police while residing in a house used for cultivating marijuana. Despite his attorney’s advice regarding the risks of proceeding to a jury trial, Mr. Chen insisted on going forward. Although the attorney vigorously defended him in court, the jury concluded that it was implausible for someone living in the grow house to be unaware of the marijuana cultivation, and consequently found him guilty of illegal marijuana cultivation. 

Following a guilty verdict by the jury, the defendant has ten days to file an appeal with the appellate court. However, if the defendant enters a plea agreement, he must waive the right to appeal. In contrast, if the defendant proceeds to a jury trial and is convicted, he may immediately request an appeal. Nonetheless, winning an appeal in the United States is exceedingly difficult. 

The appellate court considers two primary factors: 

First, whether the defense attorney fulfilled their professional duties during the trial. Conduct such as drinking before court or falling asleep during proceedings may be considered dereliction of duty. However, strategic decisions such as not calling witnesses or advising the defendant not to testify are generally viewed as matters of legal strategy, and not as professional misconduct—even if the defendant disagrees. 

Second, appellate judges evaluate whether the trial judge abused their discretion. For instance, if the defense files a motion to exclude evidence or testimony obtained unlawfully by police, and the judge denies the motion, leading the jury to render a guilty verdict based on that evidence, the appellate court will determine whether the trial judge abused their discretion. 

Appellate courts do not re-try the entire case or summon witnesses. Instead, they investigate and deliberate on specific legal issues as described. After review, the appellate court typically issues one of three decisions: in approximately 90% of cases, the original verdict is upheld; in 8–9% of cases, the matter is remanded to the lower court for retrial; and in only 1–2% of cases, the appellate court overturns the original trial court or jury verdict. Except in death penalty cases, defendants must pay substantial legal fees to pursue appeals, which leads many individuals to forgo appealing due to high costs and low chances of success. 

After Mr. Chen was found guilty by the jury, the court moved to the sentencing phase. Criminal statutes typically establish sentencing guidelines for each offense. For example, illegal cultivation of more than 1,000 marijuana plants carries a minimum sentence of 16 months and a maximum of three years. The judge first instructs a probation officer to conduct a background investigation to assess whether Mr. Chen has a history of criminal behavior and whether there is potential for rehabilitation. 

Mr. Chen’s nightmare did not end with a guilty verdict and the commencement of his sentence. Because he is not a U.S. citizen, he faces potential deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after serving his time. Under the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, non-citizens who are sentenced to more than one year in prison or cause financial losses exceeding $10,000 are subject to deportation. 

A criminal case—encompassing arrest, conviction, incarceration, and immigration consequences—can take as little as six months or as long as two years to complete. In Mr. Chen’s situation, proceedings took place in state court. However, if the case had involved interstate or international elements, it could have been elevated to a federal case. Federal investigations are often lengthy, involving extended surveillance before any arrests are made, and the conviction rate exceeds 95%. Furthermore, penalties for federal crimes are significantly more severe, and the procedural rules differ from those of state courts. These differences will be explored in greater detail in future articles.