When disputes are not satisfactorily resolved in the trial courts, each party can petition the appeals court to review the case. In court, after a trial, if someone is found guilty, they can ask for the decision to be reviewed. This is called an appeal. The person who asks for the review is called the appellant, and the other side is called the appellee.

The main job of the court that reviews the case is to check if any mistakes were made during the trial. If they find a mistake that might have changed the outcome of the trial, they can send the case back for a new trial. Appeals are primarily concerned with legal error correction and do NOT examine facts and witnesses (American Bar Association, 2021).

The judges who review the case usually work in groups of three. They read documents from both sides, listen to short arguments from the lawyers, and then make a decision together. They can either agree with the original court’s decision or say that it was wrong and needs to be changed.

Sometimes, before a trial, there are rulings that one side might want to appeal—this is called an interlocutory appeal. For example, if a judge decides that some evidence can’t be used, the side that doesn’t agree might want to appeal that decision.

When the court makes a decision, it can either agree with the original decision or say that it was wrong and needs to be changed. They can also order a new trial or dismiss the case completely.

Although the defendant is permitted to appeal after entering a guilty plea, the only basis for their appeal is to challenge the sentence given.

In routine appeals, the primary function of appellate courts is to review the record for errors made by the trial court before, during, or after the trial. No trial is perfect, so the goal is to ensure a fair trial. The appellate courts examine the fairness of a trial by looking for fundamental errors. Appellate courts will reverse the conviction and possibly send the case back for a new trial when they find that trial errors affected the case’s outcome. A lower court’s judgment will not be reversed unless the appellant can show that a serious error was made by the lower court. By reviewing for errors and then writing opinions that become case law, appellate courts perform dual functions in the criminal process: error correction and lawmaking.

Standards of Review

You have just learned that one function of the appellate courts is to review the trial record and see if there is a prejudicial or fundamental error. Appellate courts do not consider each error in isolation; instead, they look at the cumulative effect of all the errors during the trial. Appellate court judges must sometimes let a decision of a lower court stand, even if they personally don’t agree with it.

An analogy that sports enthusiasts will be familiar with is instant/video replay. Officials in football, for example, will make a call—a ruling on the field—immediately after a play is made. This decision, when challenged, will be reviewed, and the decision will be upheld unless there is “incontrovertible evidence” that the call was wrong. When dealing with appeals, the standard of review indicates how much consideration the appellate court will give to the lower court’s decision. Sometimes, the appellate courts will defer to the trial court’s decision, and sometimes, the appellate courts will reject the trial court’s decision.

The appellate court will allow a trial court’s decision about a factual matter to stand unless the court clearly got it wrong. The appellate court reasons that the judge and jury were in the courtroom listening to and watching the demeanor of the witnesses and examining the physical evidence. They are in a much better position to determine the credibility of the evidence. Thus, the appellate court will not overturn findings of fact unless it is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made and that the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous or “arbitrary and capricious.” The arbitrary and capricious standard means the trial court’s decision was completely unreasonable, and it had no rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.

Licenses and Attributions for The Appellate Process

Open Content, Shared Previously

“The Appellate Process” is adapted from “7.6. The Appeals Process, Standard of Review, and Appellate Decisions” by Lore Rutz-Burri in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Sam Arungwa, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include updating for clarity.