Bail is typically raised after a conviction because they presuppose the risk of flight increases. Moreover, bail pending appeal may be greatly increased or even revoked depending on the charge. Before Friday night Sandusky was an accused child rapist, and now he's a convicted one, so his right to bail is affected. Another factor is the judge's subjective feeling concerning Sandusky's chance of success on appeal.
The entire game changes, doesn't it? When a defendant goes to trial, he's innocent until proven guilty. But if he's convicted and makes an appeal, isn't he presumed guilty until proven innocent--and only if he produces new evidence that wasn't available during the trial, or convinces the appellate court that he didn't get a fair trial due to judicial or prosecutorial errors?
Very true. A jury's verdict of guilt wipes away all the presumptions and the defendant bears the burden of establishing reversible error. I'm sure things were going so badly for Sandusky that his attorney at some point was more concerned with trying to develop and frame issues for a possible appeal than he was in establishing reasonable doubt. I've been in similar situations where the facts are killing you.
I was once picking a jury in a death penalty case by individual voir dire. In PA death penalty cases jurors must do a mathematical balancing test to determine if the aggravating factors, of which there are eight (specifically defined by statute) outweigh the mitigating factors, which could be anything. I thought I'd strart building my defense and arguing my case before trial by incorporating sympathetic aspects about my client by asking questions like, "Would you be able to evaluate child abuse Mr. Miller suffered at the hands of his father?"
The DA eventually objected and said that he should also be allowed to incorporate references to aggravating factors. I knew where he was going and as soon as he started to ask about attaching possible weight to my client's prior record, I objected and he was upset, arguing I can't have it both ways. I stated at sidebar there was an independent basis to preclude that question because the prior record is inadmissible in the case in chief and therefore it is objectionable in a voir dire question on the penalty phase. The DA then immediately agreed with my point.
While I thought I had brilliantly won the moment, the DA, who was more skilled than I, whispered to me as we were returning to our respective tables, "You know, if you had let me complete the question before you objected, you'd have had your reversible error. My heart sank and I didn't feel nearly as brilliant as I had thought a few seconds ago.
