1.4 Appellate process

The appellate process plays a crucial role in the U.S. legal system, serving as a mechanism to review and potentially correct lower court decisions. This process involves various levels of courts, from state appellate courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, each with specific jurisdictions and procedures.

Appellate courts don't retry cases but instead review legal arguments and lower court records. They apply different standards of review depending on the issue at hand, and their decisions can have far-reaching impacts, setting precedents that shape future legal interpretations and societal norms.

Appellate courts overview

• Appellate courts are higher courts that review decisions made by lower courts to determine if the law was applied correctly and if the decision was fair
• Appellate courts do not hold trials or hear new evidence, but rather review the record of the lower court proceedings and the legal arguments presented by the parties
• The role of appellate courts is critical in ensuring the consistency and fairness of the legal system, as their decisions set precedents that guide future cases

State vs federal courts

Top images from around the web for State vs federal courts

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for State vs federal courts

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Each state has its own system of appellate courts, typically consisting of intermediate appellate courts and a court of last resort (usually called the state supreme court)
• The federal court system includes 13 intermediate appellate courts called U.S. Courts of Appeals, which are divided into 12 regional circuits and the Federal Circuit
• The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system and has the final say on matters of federal law

Intermediate appellate courts

• Intermediate appellate courts, such as state appellate courts or U.S. Courts of Appeals, are the first level of appeal above trial courts
• These courts typically hear appeals as a matter of right, meaning that the losing party in a lower court case is entitled to have their case reviewed by the intermediate appellate court
• Intermediate appellate courts usually sit in panels of three judges to hear and decide cases

Courts of last resort

• Courts of last resort, such as state supreme courts or the U.S. Supreme Court, are the highest courts within their respective jurisdictions
• These courts generally have discretionary review, meaning they can choose which cases to hear based on their significance or the need to resolve conflicts among lower courts
• Decisions made by courts of last resort are final and binding within their jurisdictions, setting precedents that must be followed by lower courts

Appellate jurisdiction

• Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of appellate courts to review and decide cases that have been appealed from lower courts
• The scope of appellate jurisdiction is determined by statutes and court rules, which specify the types of cases and issues that can be appealed and the procedures for doing so
• Understanding appellate jurisdiction is crucial for parties seeking to challenge a lower court's decision, as it determines whether and how their case can be heard by a higher court

Mandatory vs discretionary review

• Mandatory review refers to cases that an appellate court is required to hear, usually because the losing party has a right to appeal under the law
• Discretionary review allows appellate courts to choose which cases to hear based on factors such as the importance of the legal issues involved or the need to resolve conflicts among lower courts
• Most cases heard by intermediate appellate courts are subject to mandatory review, while courts of last resort primarily exercise discretionary review

Appeals as of right

• An appeal as of right is a type of mandatory review that entitles the losing party in a lower court case to have their case heard by an appellate court
• In most jurisdictions, parties have an appeal as of right from final judgments or orders of trial courts, meaning the appellate court must hear the case if the losing party files a timely notice of appeal
• Appeals as of right ensure that parties have an opportunity to challenge perceived errors or injustices in lower court decisions

Permissive appeals

• Permissive appeals are a type of discretionary review in which an appellate court grants permission for a party to appeal a lower court's decision
• This typically occurs when the lower court certifies that the case involves a significant legal question or that an immediate appeal would advance the ultimate resolution of the case
• Permissive appeals are less common than appeals as of right and are subject to the discretion of the appellate court

Interlocutory appeals

• Interlocutory appeals are appeals taken from non-final orders or decisions made by a lower court during the course of litigation
• These appeals challenge rulings on issues such as jurisdiction, injunctions, or evidence admissibility, which can significantly impact the outcome of the case
• Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored because they can delay the resolution of cases, but they may be permitted in exceptional circumstances where waiting for a final judgment would cause irreparable harm or waste judicial resources

Appellate procedure

• Appellate procedure refers to the rules and steps that govern the process of appealing a case from a lower court to an appellate court
• These procedures are designed to ensure fairness, efficiency, and consistency in the handling of appeals
• Parties must follow the applicable rules of appellate procedure, which may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case being appealed

Notice of appeal

• A notice of appeal is a formal document filed by the party seeking to appeal a lower court's decision, informing the court and the opposing party of their intention to pursue an appeal
• The notice of appeal must be filed within a specified time period after the entry of the final judgment or order being appealed (typically 30 days in federal courts)
• Filing a timely notice of appeal is a critical step in preserving a party's right to appellate review

Record on appeal

• The record on appeal is the official collection of documents, transcripts, and other materials from the lower court proceedings that will be considered by the appellate court
• It typically includes pleadings, motions, orders, trial transcripts, and exhibits admitted into evidence
• The appellant (the party filing the appeal) is responsible for designating the portions of the record to be included and ensuring that the record is complete and accurately reflects the lower court proceedings

Appellate briefs

• Appellate briefs are written arguments submitted by the parties to the appellate court, outlining their positions on the issues being appealed
• The appellant's brief presents the reasons why the lower court's decision should be reversed or modified, while the appellee's brief responds to those arguments and defends the lower court's decision
• Briefs must comply with the court's formatting and content requirements, such as page limits and citation standards

Oral arguments

• Oral arguments are in-person or remote hearings before a panel of appellate judges, during which attorneys for each party have the opportunity to present their case and answer questions from the judges
• Not all cases receive oral argument; courts may decide cases based solely on the briefs if they believe oral argument would not assist in resolving the issues
• Oral arguments allow judges to clarify points of contention, test the limits of each party's position, and gauge the potential impact of their decision

Appellate decisions

• Appellate decisions are the rulings issued by the appellate court after considering the briefs, oral arguments (if any), and the record on appeal
• The court may affirm (uphold), reverse (overturn), or modify the lower court's decision, or remand (send back) the case to the lower court for further proceedings
• Appellate decisions are typically accompanied by a written opinion explaining the court's reasoning and the legal principles applied

Rehearing and reconsideration

• Rehearing and reconsideration are post-decision mechanisms that allow parties to request that the appellate court revisit its ruling
• A petition for rehearing asks the same panel of judges to reconsider its decision based on a perceived error or oversight in the original opinion
• A petition for rehearing en banc seeks review by the full court (in federal appeals courts) rather than just the panel that issued the decision
• These petitions are rarely granted and are reserved for cases involving exceptional importance or conflicts with prior decisions

Standards of review

• Standards of review are the legal principles that guide appellate courts in evaluating the decisions of lower courts
• These standards determine the degree of deference given to the lower court's findings and the extent to which the appellate court can revisit or modify those findings
• The applicable standard of review depends on the nature of the issue being appealed and the type of decision made by the lower court

Questions of law vs fact

• Questions of law involve the interpretation or application of legal principles and are reviewed de novo (anew) by the appellate court, giving no deference to the lower court's conclusions
• Questions of fact concern the determination of what actually happened based on the evidence presented and are reviewed more deferentially, with the appellate court typically upholding the lower court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous

De novo review

• De novo review is the most non-deferential standard, in which the appellate court considers the issue as if it were being presented for the first time, without regard to the lower court's decision
• This standard applies to questions of law, such as the interpretation of statutes or the application of legal principles to undisputed facts
• Under de novo review, the appellate court has the authority to reach its own conclusions and substitute its judgment for that of the lower court

Clearly erroneous standard

• The clearly erroneous standard applies to the review of a lower court's factual findings and gives significant deference to those findings
• Under this standard, the appellate court will uphold the lower court's factual determinations unless they are implausible or contradicted by other evidence in the record
• This standard recognizes the trial court's superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence presented

Abuse of discretion

• The abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions that involve the exercise of the lower court's discretion, such as rulings on the admissibility of evidence or the management of trial proceedings
• Under this standard, the appellate court will uphold the lower court's decision unless it was based on an error of law, a clearly erroneous factual finding, or a manifestly unreasonable judgment
• This standard acknowledges the trial court's broad latitude in making discretionary decisions and the need for appellate courts to avoid micromanaging trial proceedings

Plain error

• The plain error standard applies to errors that were not properly preserved by objection in the lower court but are so fundamental that they affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings
• Under this standard, the appellate court may consider an unpreserved error if it is clear or obvious and affects the defendant's substantial rights
• The plain error doctrine is a narrow exception to the general rule that errors must be preserved by timely objection, and it is applied sparingly to prevent miscarriages of justice

Harmless error

• The harmless error standard recognizes that not all errors warrant reversal of a lower court's decision
• Under this standard, the appellate court will uphold the decision if the error did not affect the substantial rights of the parties or the outcome of the case
• The burden is on the party asserting the error to demonstrate that it was prejudicial and not merely harmless
• This standard promotes judicial efficiency by avoiding the unnecessary reversal of decisions based on minor or technical errors

Appellate opinions

• Appellate opinions are the written decisions issued by appellate courts explaining their rulings and the reasons behind them
• These opinions serve several important functions, including resolving the specific dispute before the court, providing guidance to lower courts and litigants, and developing the law through precedent
• The format and content of appellate opinions may vary depending on the court and the nature of the case, but they typically include a recitation of the relevant facts, an analysis of the legal issues, and a statement of the court's holding

Majority opinion

• The majority opinion is the primary opinion of the court, representing the views of a majority of the judges on the panel
• It sets forth the court's decision, the reasons supporting it, and the legal principles applied
• The majority opinion is binding precedent within the court's jurisdiction and must be followed by lower courts in future cases raising similar issues

Concurring opinion

• A concurring opinion is written by a judge who agrees with the result reached by the majority but for different reasons or with additional commentary
• Concurrences may be used to express a narrower or broader view of the legal principles involved or to suggest alternative approaches for future cases
• While not binding, concurring opinions can provide valuable insights into the court's decision-making process and may influence the development of the law over time

Dissenting opinion

• A dissenting opinion is written by a judge who disagrees with the majority's decision and wishes to express a contrary view
• Dissents argue against the majority's reasoning, highlight perceived flaws in its analysis, or propose alternative resolutions to the case
• Although dissenting opinions do not have precedential value, they can serve important functions, such as sparking public debate, encouraging further litigation, or laying the groundwork for future changes in the law

Per curiam opinion

• A per curiam opinion is an unsigned opinion issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a specific judge
• These opinions are typically shorter and less detailed than signed opinions and are often used for routine or uncontroversial cases
• Per curiam opinions carry the same precedential weight as signed majority opinions but may provide less guidance for future cases due to their brevity

Memorandum opinion

• A memorandum opinion is a brief, informal opinion that addresses the issues in a case without extensive analysis or discussion of legal principles
• These opinions are often used for cases that do not raise novel or complex legal questions and may not be published in official court reporters
• Memorandum opinions are binding on the parties to the case but have limited precedential value for future cases

Publication of opinions

• Not all appellate opinions are published in official court reporters or made available online
• Courts have discretion to decide which opinions to publish based on factors such as the novelty or significance of the legal issues involved, the potential for the opinion to provide guidance to lower courts and litigants, and the workload of the court
• Unpublished opinions are binding on the parties to the case but have limited precedential value and may not be cited as authority in future cases, depending on the jurisdiction's rules

Impact of appellate decisions

• Appellate decisions have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the resolution of individual cases
• They shape the development of the law, guide the actions of lower courts and litigants, and can have significant social, economic, and political implications
• Understanding the impact of appellate decisions is crucial for legal professionals, policymakers, and the public at large

Binding vs persuasive authority

• Binding authority refers to legal principles and decisions that a court must follow because they come from a higher court within the same jurisdiction or from the same court in an earlier case
• Persuasive authority refers to legal principles and decisions that a court may consider and find convincing but is not obligated to follow, such as decisions from courts in other jurisdictions or secondary sources like law review articles
• The distinction between binding and persuasive authority is critical in determining the precedential value of appellate decisions and how they will be applied in future cases

Stare decisis

• Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that requires courts to follow the principles and decisions established by earlier cases, particularly those from higher courts within the same jurisdiction
• This doctrine promotes consistency, predictability, and stability in the law by ensuring that similar cases are decided in a similar manner
• Stare decisis is not an absolute rule, and courts may depart from precedent in certain circumstances, such as when the original decision was clearly erroneous or when societal changes have rendered the precedent outdated or unworkable

Overruling precedent

• Overruling precedent occurs when a court, usually a higher court, decides that a previous decision was incorrect and should no longer be followed
• This is a significant step that is taken only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the original decision was based on flawed reasoning, when it has proven unworkable in practice, or when it conflicts with subsequent developments in the law
• When a precedent is overruled, the new decision becomes the binding authority for future cases raising similar issues

Remand to lower courts

• When an appellate court reverses or modifies a lower court's decision, it may remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion
• On remand, the lower court must follow the appellate court's instructions and apply the legal principles articulated in the appellate decision
• Remand orders can range from narrow directives to address specific issues to broad instructions to conduct a new trial or reconsider the entire case in light of the appellate court's ruling

Certification to state courts

• In cases involving questions of state law that are determinative of the outcome but have not been clearly resolved by the state's courts, a federal court may certify the question to the state's highest court for an authoritative answer
• Certification promotes cooperative federalism and avoids the need for federal courts to speculate about how a state court would interpret its own laws
• Once the state court provides its answer, the federal court incorporates that interpretation into its decision and proceeds accordingly

U.S. Supreme Court review

• The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system and has the ultimate authority to interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution
• Parties who are unsatisfied with the decision of a federal court of appeals or a state court of last resort on a federal question may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the lower court's decision
• The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction and grants certiorari in only a small fraction of cases, typically those presenting issues of national importance or conflicts among lower courts
• When the Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides a case, its decision becomes binding precedent for all lower courts and sets the definitive interpretation of federal law on the issues presented