What is the role of an appelate court?

Answer 1

The appellate courts are the courts of appeals. Essentially when a case is heard in a lower court and the defendant, plantiff, attorneys, etc are not happy with a ruling or outcome they file an appeal. The court of appeals then decides if they will review the case to determine if there was some error made regarding the application of the law.

An example of something the appellate court can do: John Doe was arrested after the Police detained him for openly carrying a firearm. John Doe's state of residence has legalized this opened carry. When the Police detained him, they searched his persons and found a gram of marijuana. They proceeded to arrest him and charge him with several felonies for being in possession of drugs and a firearm.

At his trial his defense attorney's motion to have the marijuana suppressed as a result of an illegal detainment and illegal search and seizure. The judge denies the attorney's motion and states that not allowing the marijuana would be prejudicial to the persons character and states so that the defendant did in fact have the marijuana on him while in possession of the firearm to the jury. Subsequently, John Doe is convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

His attorneys file an appeal on the basis of judicial misconduct on behalf of the judge allowing evidence that should have been suppressed be presented to the jury on the basis of the persons character and stating to the jury that he did in fact have marijuana on him, which presented a bias from the start. Also, they cite that the marijuana was discovered only through an illegal Terry Stop. They also appeal his conviction on the basis that his possession of a firearm was legal under the states statutes.

Now the appeals court will determine if they choose to review this case, this is called certiorari, or judicial review. They will request all documents, evidence, and testimony that was heard in the original trial.

Returning to our example: The appeals court notes that the Judge made an error when not suppressing the evidence that was clearly obtained as a result of improper policing. They also note that the judge did in fact create a form of bias when he told the jury a fact that was required to be proven by the state (in all prosecution the state is solely responsible for proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants guilt). The appellate court also notes that the conviction was unfounded on the basis of law as the defendants right to carry an openly expressed firearm was legal per the states laws. They immediately overturn the defendants conviction, reprimand the judge, and send the case back to the lower courts to be reviewed by courts.

(Note: Had this actually happen to John Doe, he would be receiving a considerable payout from the state as a result of multiple civil rights violations and wrongful imprisonment.)