PART 3 - CHAPTER 14 Appeals

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 14 Appeals

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

■ Explain the differences between trial and appellate courts and which appellate courts have jurisdiction in which types of cases.
■ Explain the differences between trial and appellate courts and the types of cases over which appellate courts have jurisdiction.
■ Compare and contrast interlocutory appeals with other types of appeals.
■ Discuss the content, use, and importance of the record.
■ Identify and distinguish between the various types of error and explain why these differences are important.
■ Compare and contrast the concepts of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clearly erroneous."

INTRODUCTION

Due to the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy, prosecutors cannot appeal a not-guilty verdict, so criminal appeals can be initiated only by individuals who have been convicted in a state or federal court. However, some states permit the prosecution to appeal dismissals of indictments and informations, orders that quash arrests or suppressing evidence, and sentencing orders. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the appeals process, an analysis of the decision to appeal, and a discussion of the steps that should be taken to prepare for an appeal. We focus on the preservation of issues for review, the types of errors presented to the appellate court, the standard of review, and the steps involved in filing an appeal.¹

A. THE RIGHT TO APPEAL CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS

The term "appeal" is most commonly used to refer to a request to reconsider a decision or intended action. Thus, a student may appeal to an instructor to raise a grade on a paper or a test.² In the legal context, it is an attempt to have a legal decision reviewed and overturned by a higher-ranking legal authority. Most criminal appeals involve lower-level state appellate courts reviewing decisions of trial court judges in their state or, in the case of the federal courts, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing decisions of U.S. District Court judges within their circuit. There are also criminal appeals in which decisions of lower-level state appellate courts are reviewed by higher-level appellate courts (usually, but not always, called "supreme courts"), and the decisions of U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, there are a limited number of situations in which decisions by the highest state court are reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the context of this chapter, we will define the term appeal as referring to a formal request for review of an order or judgment entered by a court, which seeks to reverse or modify another lower court's decision.³

When most people think about criminal appeals, they imagine a case where the defendant was convicted after a trial, is sentenced to prison, and then looks to a higher court for relief. While this is the most common scenario, there are other types of situations in which cases end up in appellate courts. For instance, defendants sometimes appeal orders approving plea agreements. In many jurisdictions, defendants may appeal misdemeanor convictions that did not result in a prison term.

Although there is no constitutional right to an appeal in a criminal case,⁴ all states and the federal government provide some type of appellate review for people who are convicted in criminal cases. Furthermore, several constitutional provisions protect defendants' ability to effectively present their appeal. For instance, indigent convicted felons are entitled to a free transcript⁵ and appointed counsel for their first appeal.⁶ In misdemeanor cases, defendants commonly have a right of review in the general trial court, followed by discretionary appellate review.⁷

B. MATTERS THAT CAN BE APPEALED

An appeal of a judge's or jury's decision cannot be successfully made solely on the basis of not liking the outcome. One cannot appeal on the basis that the judge or jury came to the wrong conclusion about the defendant's guilt. Rather, an appeal must allege that one or more significant legal errors were made at trial involving things like the types of evidence that were admitted or the instructions the judge gave to the jury.

Furthermore, these mistakes must be sufficiently serious to have affected the outcome of the case. Errors that do not meet this standard are classified as harmless errors and cannot be used as a basis for overturning a lower court's action. Examples of harmless errors include (1) a mistake in the pleadings if the facts can be determined at trial; (2) errors in jury instructions unless there is reason to believe that they actually misled the jury; and (3) the failure to strictly follow the rules of evidence in a bench trial, as it is assumed a judge is unlikely to be affected by incompetent evidence. In contrast, errors that could have changed the result in the case are classified as reversible errors. Examples of reversible errors would include the failure to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained or to allow testimony from a competent witness when the testimony was relevant and material.

In situations in which several "minor errors"⁸ were found to have occurred in the trial, the appellate court may conclude that cumulative error prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial. In these circumstances, the court of review will reverse the verdict and remand the case to the lower court to conduct a new trial.

C. STANDARDS USED IN APPELLATE REVIEW

At the trial court level, the defendant is presumed to be innocent, and the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But when the case proceeds to the appellate level, the burdens and standards of proof change. At the appellate level, the appellant carries the burden of proving that a reversible error occurred at the trial court level. Furthermore, the standard of proof used in appellate courts depends on whether the decision being reviewed involves the facts of the case or the interpretation and application of the law.

Appellate judges will generally defer to the findings made by trial judges and juries with regard to factual issues. Unless the appellant can prove that the trial court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous, they will not overturn them. This deference is based on the fact that the judge and jury were in the better position to reach these judgments about the facts because they, as the triers of fact, personally observed the demeanor, body language, and other characteristics of the witnesses.

Appellate judges also give great deference to the trial judge's case management decisions, such as permission to amend a complaint or a denial of a request for a continuance. They will reverse in these types of situations only if the appellant can prove that the judge committed a clear error of judgment, lacked the authority to act, or acted with prejudice or malice.

On the other hand, if it is reviewing a decision involving the interpretation or application of a statute or court decision, such as a trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the appropriateness of a line of questioning, or the nature of the jury instructions, the appellate judges will make their own independent review without giving any deference to the trial judge's decision.

Situations can also arise where the resolution of a legal issue requires the court to review the facts. For example, when a party appeals based on the trial judge's decision to deny a motion for a directed verdict, the appellant is arguing that the evidence was so one-sided that it could support only one conclusion. Because the appellate judges are ruling on a motion, this is a legal question. However, before they can reach a decision on this issue, they must make their own judgment about the strength of the evidence itself. In these mixed law and fact situations, the appellate court judges may end up making an independent review of the facts.

It is important to remember that even where the appellant has met the stiff burden of convincing an appellate court that legal errors were made, the previously convicted defendant may still wind up with the same, or even a worse, sentence. Not only can a lower-level appellate court be reversed by a higher-level appellate court, but an appellate reversal also may lead to a re-do, in which the conviction or sentence is reinstated after the remaining "appropriate evidence" is reheard.

D. FILING THE APPEAL

After ruling on the post-trial motions and imposing the sentence, the trial judge will inform the defendant as to the right of appeal. The judge will also instruct the defendant about the rights to counsel and to be furnished with a free transcript if the defendant cannot afford an attorney and the transcript.⁹ The defendant then has a narrow window of time within which to decide whether to appeal the case to a higher court. The specific filing requirements for each court can be found on their websites, as well as in the published rules of the pertinent court of review.

A defendant who initiates an appeal is called the appellant in the court of review, and the prosecution, as the party defending the trial court's decision on appeal, is called the appellee.¹⁰ In some jurisdictions, the appealing party is known as the "petitioner" or "applicant" and the defending party is known as the "respondent." The procedures governing appeals are found in court rules or statutes.

While the prosecution cannot appeal a guilty verdict, it can seek review of additional aspects of the case once the matter is before the appellate court. Whereas the defense may contend that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the government may object to the sentence that was given to the defendant. In situations like this, the prosecution's request for review is called a cross appeal. The parties are then referred to as the appellant-cross appellee and the appellee-cross appellant.

After an appeal has...