Overview
|
Overview
of the Appellate Process
A Multi-Step Process | Trial
Courts | Appellate
Courts | The
Appellate Review
|
Not all courts are alike
Most people have some misconceptions
about what happens in the Court of Appeal. Many base their
perception on what they've seen on television, movies,
and occasionally, televised trials. The drama that can
be associated with trial courts is not even remotely a
part of the workings of the appellate court.
Appellate courts have an air of mystery about them, precisely
because they are not a trial court:
there are no witnesses giving testimony, no prosecutors
or defense attorneys, and no evidence submitted or argued
over. In fact, the only public part of an appeal happens
when the parties convene for oral arguments-- when the
case is argued in front of the appellate justices. This
process is sometimes waived by the attorneys, and even
the justices don't always want to hear arguments.
The task of appealing your case will be quite different
than what occurred at trial. It is a
multi-step process, in a system that has its own rules
of court, procedures and decision-making regarding the
cases that are heard. There are no guarantees that even
a timely filed notice of appeal will result in a decision
by the Court of Appeal reviewing the trial court judgment.
That's why it requires an attorney with highly specialized
skills to help you navigate your request through the system
to increase the likelihood of it being heard, let alone
reversed.
|
The Trial Court
At the trial court level, each party
attempts to prove that his or her case is "right",
or "just" before a judge or a jury. In order
to do that, each side presents evidence in the form of
testimony and documents. Our system of law is known as
an adversary system where each litigant’s
attorney attempts to win the case for his or her client
and no help is given to the opposing side. It is the job
of the attorneys to protect their client’s right
to a fair trial or hearing by objecting when the other
side tries to win the case by unfair methods, such as by
introducing irrelevant or prejudicial evidence, or evidence
that is unreliable such as hearsay or coerced confessions.
It is not the judge's job to make the final decision
in the trial-- it rests with the trier(s) of fact. It
is the trial judge's obligation to make sure that the
evidence presented complies with the rules-- so that
that one side does not have an unfair advantage over
the other. The judge also rules on objections, and
decides if testimony can be allowed. The trier
of fact is either a jury,
composed of 12 members in a criminal case, or 9 in
a civil case, or a judge if a jury is waived or the
constitution or state statutes do not provide for a
jury. For instance, in probate matters, and juvenile
court, there is no right to a jury trial and the judge
makes all the decisions, as well as the final verdict.
As the moderator, the judge instructs the jury on the
law that applies to the case and the task of the jury
is to apply the facts to the law to come up with a decision.
In order to work properly, each side needs a skilled
advocate who makes all necessary efforts to investigate
and prepare the case for trial, to introduce all the
evidence that will support his or her case, and to keep
out objectionable evidence or argument that would prejudice
his client’s case before the trier of fact.
The trial system assumes that the judge will make all
the correct rulings to ensure that only admissible and
non-prejudicial evidence gets to the decision maker(s),
and it assumes that the jurors making the decision, will
correctly apply the law to the facts.
While this is the theory behind our adversary
system, it rarely works this well in practice.
The Appellate Court
There is also a common perception that the appellate
courts act as a kind of "super jury" that
will correct misjudgments or poor decisions by the
jury in the trial court. On the contrary, the appellate
court justices do not sit as a "new" judge
or jury to re-decide a verdict. It is the function
of the appellate court to review the judgment of the
trial court to ensure that the trial court proceedings
were fair and that the judgment is reliable. In other
words, the court must answer the question:
did every party in the (appealed) proceeding get a
fair hearing of their respective case?
The responsibility of the appellate court in reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence is to simply determine
if there was any evidence in the trial record to support
that judgement or verdict. The “appellate record” is
the trial clerk’s transcript consisting of the
papers filed by the attorneys in the trial court, the
minutes of each day’s court proceedings, the
exhibits and evidence introduced by the parties, and
the court reporter’s transcript which is the
written record of what was said in the courtroom by
the attorneys, judge, and witnesses.
When one party or a defendant feel
that the jury or judge did not decide the facts of the
case fairly or properly in their favor, they have the
right to appeal that decision or verdict. The job of
the appellate court is to determine if the attorneys,
the judge and/or the jury performed their duties so that
the result of the trial can be considered reliable. While
a defendant or litigant may complain that a verdict was "unjust" or "unfair",
the appellate court will not consider their opinion in
its review of a case on appeal. The court instead, relies
on the attorneys from each side to prepare a brief telling
the court what the problems were in the trial, and how
those problems may have affected the outcome.
Unlike the trial court where a single judge acts as a moderator,
at the Court of Appeal multiple justices hear the case.
Progressing along the appellate stairwell from Court of
Appeal, to State Supreme Court, to United States Supreme
Court, the stakes get larger and therefore the number of
justices that must be convinced gets correspondingly greater:
• there are three justices at the State Court of
Appeal;
• there are three justices at the Federal Court of
Appeal;
• there are seven justices at the California Supreme
Court;
• there are nine justices at the U.S. Supreme Court.
It makes sense that the greater the impact an appellate
court decision has on the lives of ordinary citizens, (and
the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have the greatest
impact) that a correspondingly greater number of jurists
should be convinced of the merit of the decision.
The Appellate Review
How the appellate court conducts the review of the
record on appeal is known as the “standard
of review.” For instance, if the question
is whether or not the trial court properly applied
the law or gave correct instructions, the appellate
court can rely upon its own interpretation of the law
and applies what is known as “de novo”
or “independent review.”
This requires a more exacting review of the record
by the appellate court because the court must be sure
that its opinion is right on the facts and the law
instead of simply determining whether the reasons given
by a party in a brief are wrong or unsupported.
If the court is determining whether the verdict of
a jury or findings of the court are supported by the
evidence presented at the trial or hearing, the court
applies what is known as “substantial
evidence” review. The court will affirm
the judgment if there is credible evidence in the record
supporting it. It is up to the trier of fact, be it
judge or jury, to determine which side had the better
factual argument at trial and this cannot be litigated
again in the appellate court. You need to be aware
that when a case is reviewed, there is the presumption
that the trial court's verdict is correct-- the
burden is on the appellant to show the Court of Appeal
why it needs to reverse the decision.
If the question is whether the trial court conducted
the proceedings in an appropriate manner, the court
applies an “abuse of discretion” standard
which requires only some rational reason for the court’s
action. For example, the trial court exercises its
discretion in pretrial matters, such as the scope of
discovery allowed to each side, and trial matters such
as the length of time and scope of examination of witnesses.
If after applying the appropriate standard of review
the appellate court determines that an error was made,
the court must then determine whether that error affected
the final result. This also requires application of
various standards of review depending upon the type
of error involved. Depending upon which “standard
of reversible error” the Court of Appeal
chooses, the party seeking to have the judgment reversed
may have the burden of proving prejudice or the party
seeking to have the judgment affirmed may have to prove
the error was harmless.
For instance, errors that violate the constitutional
rights of an individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
are reviewed under a “harmless error” in
which the party seeking to have the judgment affirmed
must show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. On the other hand, most errors involving the
admission or exclusion of evidence are viewed under
the “prejudicial error” standard which
requires the appellant to show some concrete way in
which the error actually affected the result
For more information regarding the appellate process,
please refer to
the Appellate
FAQs.
|
|
