3.6 Appeals

Appeals play a crucial role in the legal system, allowing parties to challenge lower court decisions. They come in two main types: civil appeals for private disputes and criminal appeals for defendants contesting convictions or sentences. Understanding the appeals process is key to navigating the complexities of the legal system.

The appeals process involves specific procedures, from filing a notice of appeal to submitting briefs and potentially presenting oral arguments. Appellate courts apply different standards of review depending on the issue at hand, and their decisions can have far-reaching impacts on legal precedent and future cases.

Types of appeals

• Appeals are legal proceedings that allow parties to challenge decisions made by lower courts or administrative agencies
• The two main categories of appeals are civil appeals, which involve disputes between private parties, and criminal appeals, where defendants challenge their convictions or sentences

Civil vs criminal appeals

Top images from around the web for Civil vs criminal appeals

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Civil vs criminal appeals

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Civil appeals arise from lawsuits between individuals or organizations seeking remedies for wrongs or enforcement of rights (breach of contract)
• Criminal appeals are brought by defendants convicted of crimes who seek to overturn their convictions or reduce their sentences (challenging a murder conviction)
• Civil appeals often focus on issues of law, while criminal appeals may also involve constitutional rights and questions of fact
• The burden of proof is lower in civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) compared to criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt)

Interlocutory vs final judgment appeals

• Interlocutory appeals challenge rulings made by the court during the course of a case, before a final judgment is entered (denial of a motion to dismiss)
• Final judgment appeals are filed after the trial court has issued a final decision resolving all issues in the case (appealing a jury verdict)
• Interlocutory appeals are generally less common and require special permission from the appellate court
• Final judgment appeals are a matter of right in most cases, meaning the appellate court must hear the appeal

Appellate jurisdiction

• Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of higher courts to review and potentially modify decisions made by lower courts
• The specific courts with appellate jurisdiction and the scope of their review vary between the federal and state court systems

Federal court system

• The federal court system has a three-tiered structure, with district courts at the trial level, circuit courts of appeals at the intermediate level, and the Supreme Court at the top
• The 12 regional circuit courts have jurisdiction over appeals from the district courts within their geographic boundaries (Ninth Circuit reviewing a case from the District of Oregon)
• The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction over certain specialized cases, such as patent disputes and claims against the federal government
• The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction over appeals from the circuit courts and state high courts

State court systems

• Each state has its own court system, typically with trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and a high court (often called the Supreme Court)
• State appellate jurisdiction is governed by state constitutions and statutes, which may differ from the federal system
• Some states have separate appellate courts for civil and criminal cases, while others have a single court handling both types of appeals (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Texas Court of Civil Appeals)
• State high courts generally have the final say on matters of state law, but their decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on federal constitutional issues

Grounds for appeal

• Grounds for appeal are the legal reasons a party cites to justify overturning or modifying a lower court's decision
• These grounds typically fall into two main categories: questions of law and questions of fact

Questions of law vs questions of fact

• Questions of law involve issues of legal interpretation, such as the proper application of statutes or constitutional provisions (whether a search was lawful under the Fourth Amendment)
• Questions of fact concern disputes over the evidence presented at trial, such as witness credibility or the weight of the evidence (whether eyewitness testimony was reliable)
• Appellate courts generally review questions of law de novo, meaning they consider the issue anew without deference to the lower court's decision
• Questions of fact are reviewed more deferentially, with appellate courts typically upholding the lower court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous

Reversible vs harmless errors

• Reversible errors are mistakes made by the trial court that are significant enough to warrant overturning the decision (admitting evidence obtained through an unlawful search)
• Harmless errors are minor mistakes that do not affect the outcome of the case and do not require reversal (a brief reference to inadmissible evidence that was quickly corrected)
• To obtain a reversal, the appealing party must show that the error was prejudicial, meaning it likely influenced the outcome of the case
• The burden of demonstrating harmless error falls on the party seeking to uphold the lower court's decision

Plain error rule

• The plain error rule allows appellate courts to consider errors that were not properly raised or preserved at the trial level
• To qualify as plain error, the mistake must be clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously impact the fairness or integrity of the proceedings
• The plain error rule is an exception to the general requirement that parties must object to errors at trial to preserve them for appeal
• This rule is applied sparingly and is reserved for particularly egregious or fundamental errors

Appellate procedure

• Appellate procedure encompasses the steps and requirements for pursuing an appeal, from filing the initial notice to the final decision

Notice of appeal

• The notice of appeal is a document filed by the party seeking to appeal (the appellant) that informs the court and the opposing party (the appellee) of the intent to appeal
• The notice must be filed within a specified time period after the entry of the final judgment or order being appealed (30 days in federal court)
• Filing the notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the trial court to the appellate court and begins the appellate process
• The notice typically includes the names of the parties, the court being appealed from, and the judgment or order being appealed

Record on appeal

• The record on appeal is a compilation of the documents and evidence from the trial court proceedings that the appellate court will review
• It typically includes the pleadings, motions, transcripts of hearings and trials, exhibits, and the trial court's orders and judgments
• The appellant is responsible for designating the portions of the record to be included and ensuring that the record is properly prepared and filed
• The record on appeal is essential for the appellate court to understand the history of the case and the basis for the appeal

Appellate briefs

• Appellate briefs are written arguments submitted by the parties to the appellate court outlining their positions and the legal authorities supporting them
• The appellant files an opening brief, which presents the issues on appeal and argues why the lower court's decision should be reversed or modified
• The appellee then files a response brief, countering the appellant's arguments and urging the court to affirm the lower court's decision
• The appellant may file a reply brief to address new points raised in the appellee's brief
• Briefs are subject to strict formatting and length requirements set by the court

Oral arguments

• Oral arguments are in-person hearings before a panel of appellate judges where the parties' attorneys present their cases and answer questions from the bench
• Not all appeals involve oral arguments; the court may decide the case based solely on the briefs
• During oral arguments, each side is allotted a set amount of time (often 10-30 minutes) to make their case and respond to the judges' inquiries
• Effective oral advocacy requires attorneys to be well-prepared, concise, and responsive to the court's concerns
• Oral arguments can help clarify complex issues and give the judges a chance to probe the parties' positions

Standards of review

• Standards of review are the legal lenses through which appellate courts evaluate the lower court's decisions and the deference they give to those decisions
• Different standards apply depending on the type of issue being reviewed (law, fact, or discretion)

De novo review

• De novo review is the least deferential standard, where the appellate court considers the issue as if for the first time, without regard to the lower court's decision
• This standard applies to pure questions of law, such as the interpretation of statutes or the Constitution
• Under de novo review, the appellate court independently researches and analyzes the legal issues
• No deference is given to the trial court's legal conclusions

Clearly erroneous standard

• The clearly erroneous standard applies to the review of factual findings made by the trial court
• Under this standard, the appellate court will uphold the lower court's findings unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence or the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made
• This standard recognizes the trial court's superior position to assess witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence
• The appellate court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless the findings are plainly wrong

Abuse of discretion standard

• The abuse of discretion standard applies to decisions that involve the exercise of the trial court's discretion, such as rulings on the admissibility of evidence or the management of the trial
• 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 clear error of judgment
• This standard is highly deferential, recognizing that trial courts have broad latitude in managing the proceedings before them
• An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unsupported by the facts or law

Possible outcomes on appeal

• After considering the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, the appellate court will issue a decision, which can take several forms

Affirming the lower court

• If the appellate court finds no reversible error and agrees with the lower court's decision, it will affirm the judgment
• An affirmance upholds the lower court's ruling and ends the appeal, leaving the original decision in place
• The losing party may seek further review from a higher court (such as a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court) if available

Reversing the lower court

• If the appellate court finds reversible error, it may reverse the lower court's decision
• A reversal overturns the original ruling and may result in a new trial, a modified judgment, or a dismissal of the case
• The appellate court will issue an opinion explaining the reasons for the reversal and providing instructions for further proceedings

Remanding for further proceedings

• In some cases, the appellate court may remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings
• A remand may be necessary if the appellate court finds error but additional factual findings or legal rulings are needed to resolve the case
• The lower court must follow the appellate court's instructions on remand and address the identified issues
• After the lower court's decision on remand, the case may be appealed again to the higher court

Impact of appellate decisions

• Appellate decisions have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate case, shaping the development of the law and influencing future cases

Binding vs persuasive authority

• Binding authority refers to legal 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
• Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts, and appellate decisions are binding on the lower courts within their jurisdiction
• Persuasive authority refers to legal decisions that a court may consider but is not required to follow, such as decisions from other jurisdictions or lower courts
• Courts often look to persuasive authority when confronted with novel legal issues or to support their reasoning

Stare decisis and precedent

• Stare decisis is the legal principle that courts should follow precedent, meaning they should adhere to prior decisions in similar cases
• This principle promotes consistency, predictability, and stability in the law
• Precedent refers to a prior court decision that serves as an authority for deciding subsequent cases with similar facts or legal issues
• Lower courts must follow precedent set by higher courts, but appellate courts may overrule their own precedent in certain circumstances (if the original decision was clearly erroneous or conditions have significantly changed)

Law of the case doctrine

• The law of the case doctrine holds that legal decisions made at one stage of a case should govern the same issues in subsequent stages of the same case
• This doctrine applies to both trial and appellate proceedings and prevents relitigation of settled issues
• For example, if an appellate court decides an issue and remands the case, the lower court must adhere to the appellate court's ruling on that issue
• Exceptions to the law of the case doctrine may apply if there is a change in the law, new evidence emerges, or the original decision was clearly erroneous

Appellate court composition

• Appellate courts are structured differently than trial courts and have unique features that affect their decision-making processes

Panel vs en banc review

• Most appellate cases are heard by a panel of judges, typically consisting of three judges
• The panel reviews the case, hears oral arguments (if scheduled), and issues a decision
• In some cases, the full court (all active judges) may hear a case en banc, either initially or after a panel decision
• En banc review is often reserved for cases of exceptional importance, complex legal issues, or to maintain uniformity in the court's decisions

Role of appellate judges and staff

• Appellate judges are responsible for reviewing the lower court record, considering the parties' arguments, and issuing decisions
• They often have significant experience as attorneys or trial court judges before being appointed or elected to the appellate bench
• Appellate judges are assisted by law clerks, who are typically recent law school graduates or attorneys
• Law clerks help with legal research, drafting opinions, and preparing for oral arguments
• Appellate courts also have administrative staff, such as clerks of court and court reporters, who manage the court's docket and records

Writ of certiorari

• A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court (usually the U.S. Supreme Court) directing a lower court to send up the record of a case for review

Discretionary nature of review

• The Supreme Court's review of cases is largely discretionary, meaning the Court can choose which cases it will hear
• Parties seeking Supreme Court review must file a petition for a writ of certiorari, explaining why the case is significant and deserves the Court's attention
• The Court grants certiorari in only a small percentage of cases, typically those involving important legal issues or conflicts between lower courts

Factors considered by Supreme Court

• In deciding whether to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court considers various factors, such as:
  • The importance of the legal issue presented
  • The existence of a conflict between federal circuit courts or state high courts on the issue
  • The potential impact of the case on federal law or the Constitution
  • The need to clarify or correct a lower court's decision
• The Court may also consider the interests of the parties, the government, or the public in resolving the issue
• Justices discuss petitions for certiorari in private conferences and vote on whether to grant review

Preserving issues for appeal

• To raise an issue on appeal, parties must generally preserve the issue by properly presenting it to the trial court

Objections and motions at trial level

• Parties must make timely and specific objections to evidence, testimony, or rulings they believe are improper
• Failure to object may waive the right to challenge the issue on appeal
• Parties should also file appropriate motions (such as motions to suppress evidence or for a directed verdict) to preserve issues for review
• The trial court must have an opportunity to rule on the objection or motion for the issue to be preserved

Plain error and fundamental error exceptions

• In some cases, appellate courts may consider issues that were not properly preserved under the plain error or fundamental error doctrines
• Plain error applies to obvious and prejudicial mistakes that affect substantial rights, even if not raised at trial
• Fundamental error refers to mistakes that undermine the fairness and integrity of the judicial process, such as constitutional violations or structural defects in the trial
• These exceptions are narrow and rarely applied, as they bypass the normal preservation requirements
• Parties should not rely on these exceptions and should make every effort to properly preserve issues for appeal