Chapter Topics

1
(No Transcript)
2
Chapter Topics
Nature of the Appellate Process The Business of
the Appellate Courts Caseloads and
ExpeditedProcessing Techniques Post-Conviction
Remedies
3
Chapter Topics
Decision Making on Appellate Courts Explaining
Decision Making on Appellate Courts Today State
Supreme Courts U.S. Courts of Appeals
4
The Nature of the Appellate Process

• appellate courts subject the decision of another
  court to a second look
• they focus on the legal controversy rather than
  the facts in a case
• contributes to the legitimacy of the legal
  system
• only a small number of cases decided every year
  in trial courses will be appealed

5
The Nature of the Appellate Process

• appeals courts are multimember
• intermediate courts of appeals typically hear
  cases as 3 member panels
• occasionally they hear cases with all members of
  the court, referred to as en banc (can be as many
  as 28 judges)
• appellate cases present controversies about the
  law and their decisions are binding on all courts
  in their jurisdiction

6
The Purposes of Appeal

• error correction
• ensure the law was correctly applied during
  trial
• policy formulation
• sometimes referred to as lawmaking
• happens when the court fills in gaps in the law,
  clarifies doctrines, clarifies the law, overturns
  previous decisions

7
Scope of Appellate Review

• the losing party at trial generally has the
  right to one appeal
• only the losing party may file an appeal
• prosecutors may not appeal not guilty verdicts
  the Constitution protects citizens from double
  jeopardy being prosecuted twice for the same
  crime

8
Scope of Appellate Review

• appeals are discretionary (except capital
  punishment cases) most losing litigants will
  not file an appeal
• appeals must be from final judgments
• focus on questions of law not fact
• issues appealed must have been raised during the
  trial (objections during the trial)

9
Scope of Appellate Review

• the losing party only has a right to one appeal
• appeals courts have
• mandatory jurisdiction over some matters (these
  are cases they are required to hear)
• discretionary jurisdiction (the court may pick
  and choose which cases it will hear)

10
Appellate Court Procedures

• there are six general steps
• launching the appeal the appellant (losing
  party in the lower court) must file a notice of
  appeal
• preparing and transmitting the record the
  papers and exhibits (e.g., transcript) are
  transferred from the lower court
• writing and filing briefs a brief is the
  written argument stating why one side should win.
  The appellant files a brief and then the
  appellee (or respondent) files, following by an
  another opportunity for the appellant.

11
Appellate Court Procedures
4) Oral Argument the lawyers for both parties
are given an opportunity to argue their case
before the judges. Lawyers present their case
and judges ask questions. 5) Writing the Opinion
after the case has been decided the judges will
decide the case, writing an opinion which
summarizes the facts an explains the legal issues
and the basis of the decision. Judges who
disagree may write a dissenting opinion
explaining why they disagree with their fellow
judges. 6) Disposing of the case the appellate
court may affirm (uphold) the lower court
judgment, modify (change part of the ruling, or
reverse it (set aside). Sometimes they will
remand the case (send it back to the lower court
with instructions).
12
Appellate Court Procedures

• Appellate courts
• Modify
• Reverse
• Remand
• Reverse and Remand
• Only when there is error at the trial level
• Substantial error is reversible
• Trivial errors is deemed harmless

13
The Business of Appellate Courts

• Appellate courts have limited original
  jurisdiction (e.g., appeals from administrative
  agencies)
• Most cases come on appeal (e.g., reviewing a
  lower court decision)
• Most trial court filings are never appealed
  because the parties reach mutually agreeable,
  voluntary settlement

14
Civil Appeals

• Three facts drive the decision to file an appeal
• 1) how much litigants have lost in the lower
  court high stakes cases are appealed more
  frequently
• 2) likelihood of success
• 3) financial considerations appeals are
  expensive

15
Civil Appeals

• A substantial number of appeals are filed every
  year
• In federal court civil appears are more likely
  to be reversed (12) than criminal (6)
• Research has been conducted that shows resources
  (financial, legal) may matter at the appeals stage

16
Criminal Appeals

• Indigents defendants have a right to appeals
  because of Warren Court decisions in the 60s
• Today criminal appeals constitute about 50 of
  all appeals
• Criminal appeals are a) relatively homogenous, b)
  largely routine, c) rarely successful, d) those
  who are successful are likely to be the least
  serious offenses

17
Caseloads and Expedited Processing Techniques

• After World War II the appellate caseload grew
  dramatically
• There has also been a shift in the type of
  casestoday they are much more complex than those
  of previous decades
• The response has been to increase resources (more
  courts/judges) and improve efficiency

18
Increasing Resources

• The first response was to create intermediate
  courts of appeals and additional judgeships
• Create additional staff for judges (e.g. law
  clerks), who can do some of the routine work
• No guarantee that increasing resources will
  result in less delay

19
Improving Efficiency

• Assumes that all cases are not the same, some can
  be handled quickly (e.g., routine, hopeless,
  frivolous), while others require a time consuming
  review (as few as 10)
• Some argue for eliminating oral argument
• Issue summary affirmationsaffirms lower court
  ruling with offering an opinion

20
Improving Efficiency

• Generate unpublished opinionshas the benefit of
  reducing workload and concern over the amount of
  law one must study to become a lawyer
• Another reform effort focuses on settlement
  conferences--which focus on creating policy
• Settlement conference help the parties reach
  mutually agreeable positions

21
Post Conviction Remedies

• After the appeals process is over federal
  prisoners may challenged their convictions by
  filing a lawsuit (e.g., collateral attacks)
• 1) Differ from appeals because they can only be
  filed by prisoners
• 2) limited to constitutional defects
• 3) not limited by issues raised at trial
• 4) are unlimited in number

22
Habeas Corpus Relief

• Post conviction remedies are referred to as
  habeas corpusan order to someone holding a
  person to bring that person before the court.
• Protected by Article I of the U.S. Constitution,
  often described as the great writ
• Prevents government from jailing citizens without
  filing charges

23
Habeas Corpus Relief

• Expanding and Contracting the Great Writ
• Originally seen as an extraordinary effort
• Warren Court (1960s) expanded the scope of habeas
  corpus
• 1960 2,000 petitions
• 1996 68,000 petitions
• Recent court have cut back on habeas relief

24
Habeas Corpus Relief

• Expanding and Contracting the Great Writ
• seen as an extraordinary effort
• Warren Court (1960s) expanded the scope of habeas
  corpus
• 1960 2,000 petitions, 1996 68,000 petitions
• Recent Courts have cut back on habeas relief,
  petitioners are rarely successful (2)

25
Restricting Federal Habeas Corpus

• 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
  Act does
• One year deadline for filing habeas petition
• Limits successive positions
• Restricts review of state petitioner claims
• Requires a certificate of appealability
• Limits on habeas challenged but Supreme Court
  upheld law
• Lengthy review process is seen by some as soft on
  crime

26
Decision Making on Appellate Courts

• Decision of court may be reviewable by another
  level of courts
• Decisions are made by groups of judges
• Political scientists have focused a great deal of
  energy on trying to explain appellate court
  decision making
• A large number of appellate decisions are
  non-unanimous

27
Decision Making on Appellate Courts

• Non-unanimous decisions are interesting to study
  because there is disagreement about the law
  across judges who are looking at the same case
• Disagreement happens on all courts The Supreme
  Court, courts of appeals and State Supreme Courts
• Political scientists offer four ways to explain
  decision making

28
Legal Factors

• The legal model asserts that judges make
  decisions primarily based on the facts of the
  case, the legal statutes involved and the
  controlling legal precedent (stare decisis)
• Advocates argue the law cannot be the only factor
  because otherwise all judges would reach the same
  decision
• the law is often contradictory

29
Attitudinal Dimensions

• Advocates argue that judges are similar to other
  policy makers
• Votes are one way to express their views about
  politics and society
• Advocates focus on judges ideologies and their
  values to explain decisions

30
Institutional Differences

• Advocates argue that the format of multi-member
  judicial panels affects decision making
• Small groups make decisions differently than
  individuals
• An individual judge may moderate their views to
  reach agreement with others on the panel

31
Strategic Differences

• This approach assumes that judges act on their
  attitudes in a sophisticated way
• Their goal is to get the most preferred outcome
  in this particular case, but also to try and
  influence the law in later cases
• A strategic judge may give up their position in a
  less preferred legal matter to get support later

32
State Supreme Courts

• Decide 25,000 cases a year
• Most decisions will be the final word (very few
  are reviewed by the Supreme Court)
• Engage primarily in error correction, but
  increasingly they are involved in policy
  formulation
• An increasing focus on their decisions

33
Legal Factors and State Supreme Courts

• Decisions based on state constitutional law
• State constitutions are typically longer than the
  U.S. Constitution
• New Judicial Federalism refers to the movement in
  state courts to use State Constitutions as
  sources of individual rights (in contrast to
  using the U.S. Constitution)

34
Attitudinal Dimensions of Voting

• There is frequently disagreement among judges on
  State Supreme Courts
• Factors to explain this disagreement include
  partisan attitudes, religion, gender, age, race,
  pre-judicial career, etc.
• Some cases leave little room for judges policy
  preferences to have an impact (i.e., the law is
  clear)

35
Institutional Differences

• The legal and political contexts of state supreme
  courts varies considerably
• Rules and operating procedures are different
  across the states
• Important differences include judicial voting
  order, opinion assignment, control over their
  dockets (discretionary v. mandatory jurisdiction)

36
Strategic Considerations

• These models include legal, attitudinal and
  institutional factors
• Institutional factors include such forces as
  whether the judges have prior representative
  service, whether they are from single member
  districts and whether the case is heard near the
  beginning or end of their term
• Models show a complex decision making process

37
U.S. Courts of Appeals

• A new focus on courts of appeals judges and their
  decisions
• Decisions set the contours of law and policy
• Most of their decisions will not be reviewed by
  the Supreme Court
• Determine precedent in their respective circuits

38
Legal Factors and Courts of Appeals

• Decide over 60,000 cases a year
• Most cases generate unanimous decisions
• Studies have demonstrated that precedent (i.e.,
  the law) is important in case outcomes
• Judges are obligated to apply the precedent
  established by the Supreme Court

39
Attitudinal Dimensions of Voting

• Sheldon Goldman (1966) concluded that Republican
  judges tend to be more conservative than their
  Democratic colleagues
• Research shows that Democratic presidents appoint
  different types of judges than Republicans
• Judges appointed by Democrats render a greater
  percentage of liberal decisions

40
Institutional Differences

• The 13 circuit courts of appeals are separated
  geographically
• Research shows different ideological and policy
  environments across the circuits
• The composition of the three-judge panels is
  constantly changing
• The relationship of panels to the views of the
  full circuit varies (en banc review)

41
Strategic Considerations

• New research on the Courts of Appeals applies,
  legal, attitudinal, and institutional models to
  explain decision-making
• Studies have looked at a) when en banc review is
  granted, whether panel judges write separately,
  the home-state influence
• Research concludes that all factors influence
  Circuit court judicial behavior

42
Conclusion

• Appellate courts review the decisions of lower
  courts
• Appellate court caseloads have been increasing
  rapidly
• Primarily engaged in error correction but also
  involved in policy making
• Decision making is a complex combination of
  legal, attitudinal, institutional and strategic
  factors