|
How Does the Court of Appeal Decide My Case?
The
party taking an appeal from a lower court decision is required
to specify the "errors" which they allege that the
lower court made in deciding the case. Those errors can involve
questions of law and questions of fact. The court of appeal
requires that the party who takes the appeal must prove that
the lower court was wrong using certain standards.
Generally, if the alleged error involves a question of fact
or a credibility call between witnesses, the court of appeal
places a heavier burden on the appealing party to demonstrate
that the lower court was wrong. Usually, an appellate court
may reverse a lower court's factual findings when the record
reflects that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for
the finding of the trial court or, the record reflects that
the finding is clearly wrong.
In such instances, the court of appeal gives great deference
to findings of fact by the trial court. Even if the court
of appeal disagrees with the factual findings of the lower
court or, would have decided the case differently under the
same facts, the court of appeal is not allowed to substitute
its own judgment for the judgment of the lower court. It must
uphold the lower court's decision.
The reason for this deference is that the trial court actually
sat and heard the witnesses and could more readily evaluate
their credibility. Remember, the court of appeal reviews only
the type written transcript of the trial and the exhibits
admitted into evidence. It does not hear from live witnesses.
The transcript and exhibits are referred to as the "record."
This record is the only item reviewed by the court of appeal.
If evidence or argument is not in the record, it does not
get considered.
If the alleged error of the trial court is an error in the
application of the law, the court of appeal generally does
not have to give deference to the lower court's decision.
The court of appeal can decide for itself whether the correct
law was used in deciding the case.
If the court of appeal finds that the party appealing (the
appellant), has met its burden of demonstrating that the lower
court was wrong, it has several options. It can reverse the
lower court's decision and order that the case be retried
applying the correct law. It can reverse the lower court's
decision and render its own decision based upon a review of
the evidence. It can remand (return) the case to the lower
court with instructions to do something differently or to
reconsider an issue in light of its findings.
If the issue on appeal relates to damages, the court of appeal
can decrease, increase or affirm the damages awarded by the
lower court. In considering this issue, the court reviews
previous awards for similar injuries or claims and then determines
whether the award of the lower court falls within an acceptable
range of verdicts previously rendered on the subject. Generally,
if the lower court verdict falls within that range, even if
it is on the high side or low side of the range, the court
of appeal will affirm the decision of the lower court.
In terms of procedure, the person appealing the case has
the burden of asking the lower court to transcribe the testimony
taken by the court reporter at trial and preparing the record
to be "lodged" (sent) to the court of appeal for
review. The appellant's brief is due first. The appellee (the
person who won in the lower court), gets a period to review
that brief and file his own brief in response. The court then
may or may not want the parties to appear before it to hear
the lawyers argue their positions or to question them on specific
issues.
The court then makes a decision and usually designates one
of the appeal justices to write the opinion of the court.
Judges who do not agree with the decision can write a dissent,
which is basically their reasons for disagreeing with the
majority of the other deciding justices.
|
