Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

When people think of court cases, almost everyone focuses on trial courts, where a judge presides over the hurly-burly interactions among a defendant, jurors, witnesses, a possible victim, a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney. This image has been fostered by popular culture, including books, magazines, and television programs. Because the overwhelming number of cases filed with courts each year is handled by trial courts, there is support for this outlook. In 1999, for example, there were 1.99 million serious (felony) criminal cases filed in state trial courts in the United States, and only 292,000 civil and criminal cases combined filed with state appellate courts (Ostrom and Kauder 2001). But despite their relatively small number, the cases filed in appellate courts are of profound significance.

The appellate process is the only institutional mechanism to hold trial courts accountable for the correctness of their decisions. Once a trial court has rendered a final judgment and sentenced an offender, the validity of the verdict and the sentence can be challenged. Those challenges are called appeals, and the manner of resolving those cases is called the appellate process. Understanding them casts light on how well trial courts are performing their jobs. It also provides a more complete picture of the legal process than a focus on trial courts alone.

Did you Know…

Appeals courts handle far fewer cases that do trial courts. However, appeal courts play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by reviewing the work of lower courts and thereby preventing and controlling injustice.

Selection from How Appeals Work: The Basics for Non-Lawyers, by Roger A. Cox

Issues

The most difficult part of the decision on whether to file an appeal is determining whether a real issue exists which can conceivably result in relief for the appellant from the judgment in the trial court. In civil cases, expense and delay are factors to consider; even if a strong issue can be defined, is it worth it to pay for the legal work on the appeal and put up with the delay inherent in the appellate process instead of settling the case now? In criminal cases, there is seldom a question about whether to appeal, since the defendant's liberty (and sometimes their life, in death penalty jurisdictions) is usually at stake.

Trial counsel has probably already identified issues which can be raised on appeal, but skilled and experienced appellate counsel can often find issues missed by trial counsel through a careful study of the transcript and the record on appeal.

Clients often misunderstand what kinds of subjects can be addressed to an appellate court as issues on appeal. Facts are determined by a jury (or by a judge if the case was tried without a jury). An appellate court cannot and will not retry the case on the facts. It can only consider issues which allege an error of law in the trial court, not factual questions such as whether particular witnesses were believable. “The witness lied” is not an issue which can be raised on appeal, no matter how silly and incredible their testimony may have been. The credibility of witnesses has already been decided by the fact-finder (the jury or judge) who was in a better position to evaluate the mannerisms, appearance, bearing, and other factors involved when a witness testifies. The appellate court has only a cold record in front of it, not real people, and lacks the ability (and the inclination, not to mention the power) to revisit the credibility of trial witnesses.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading