The button below labeled "Doug Evans Article" takes you to an article that has links to podcasts and videos that will give you information about the shameful work of Mississippi prosecutor Doug Evans who was allowed by a broken criminal justice system to try Curtis Flowers six times for the same crime.   

The entire criminal justice system is shameful in allowing a case to be tried 6 times by the same prosecutor who has been overruled numerous times due to his misconduct.  Each trial was overturned by a higher court and returned to the same prosecutor to decide if a re-trial was warranted.  The conflict of interest exists because after a winning a case prosecutors would likely have to admit to making mistakes if the case were dropped.    

How can anyone defend such a shameful injustice?  How could Doug Evans not recuse himself?
​
The button below takes you to a  website that features "In the Dark," an investigative podcast hosted by Madeleine Baran.   Ms. Baran provides thorough coverage of the Curtis Flowers case and speaks directly with prosecutor Doug Evans.
I lost my trial because my attorney made stupid mistakes, can't I rely on an appeal to correct them? (souece: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-appeal-writ-and-habeas-corpus-petition-process.html)
Don't count on appeals to make up for any real or perceived deficiencies at trial. You should put all of your energy into the trial itself, which includes finding the right lawyer to try the case. Successfully appealing a verdict because you had a deficient attorney is an extremely difficult proposition. You can't appeal because you simply had a bad lawyer.
You can appeal on the basis that your attorney was so incompetent that you were essentially denied your 6th Amendment right to a fair trial (known legally as an "ineffective assistance of counsel" appeal). This occurs almost exclusively in criminal defense cases and the standard for the appeal is very high -- courts are extremely deferential to the competency of attorneys and maintain a strong presumption that the lawyer's assistance was within professional standards. To put it in perspective, there have been cases where an attorney has fallen asleep during a trial, yet the verdict wasn't overturned nor the case retried.
Many cases aren't eligible for appeal because the trial attorney didn't object to a ruling during the trial, and therefore didn't "preserve" that issue for appeal. For example, a written statement from a witness accusing a defendant of robbery is entered into evidence, but the witness doesn't testify at trial. The defense attorney doesn't object and the defendant is convicted based solely on the written statement. The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to face their accuser, a right which, if infringed, could form the basis for an appeal.
Because the attorney failed to object at trial to the admission of only a written statement rather than live testimony, however, the defendant is deemed to have waived this right and an appeal won't be allowed on that issue.
The example sounds absurd -- an attorney waives your constitutional right through ineptitude, yet your appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel fails -- but it happens frequently. An appeals court may reason that putting the witness on the stand wouldn't have had any positive effect for the defendant and therefore the decision not to object could be considered a trial strategy. That's the type of deferential latitude attorneys receive in ineffective assistance of counsel appeals and the reason why it's imperative to choose your attorney wisely at the beginning of the process and stay involved during each aspect of the trial.