0
Can appellate courts take new cases that have never been tried before?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
No, an appellate court may not hear new evidence. The power of the appellate court is strictly to review the record of the trial court to determine whether any errors that would affect the outcome of the case were committed.
If the appellate court felt that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court judgement, it will reverse the judgment rather than call for new evidence. If the appellate court feels that evidence was improperly excluded from the trial, it could reverse the trial court decision and remand it for a retrial with a direction that the new evidence be admitted on rehearing. IN either event the appellate will not act as a trial court and hear new evidence.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoNo. The purpose of appellate courts (with few exceptions) is to review cases that have already been tried. They do not accept new cases, as that would be outside their jurisdiction.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What happens to a case that is appealed but never heard by a judge?
Not all cases appealed to an appellate court are heard by the appellate court. In such cases the verdict delivered by the lower court of original jurisdiction will stand.
What court has a judge but no jury?
Several different courts in the United States do not use a jury:In many cases and in most jurisdictions, a defendant may chose to be tried solely in front of a judge, rather than by a jury. While not always optional (in particular, capital cases are almost never allowed to be done except with a jury), it is certainly an option for most criminal (and all civil) cases.The US Supreme Court, even when holding cases under Original Jurisdiction, does not use a jury - rather, the panel of judges themselves act as the jury.US Federal Appellate Courts (e.g. Court of Appeals), which exercise appellate jurisdiction, use a panel of judges.US Administrative Law Courts never have juries.The Supreme Court of each State does not have a jury, in the same manner as the US Supreme CourtAppeals Courts in each State never use a jury, as they act solely in an appellate (review) manner.Small Claims Courts never use juries, and most prohibit lawyersTraffic Courts never use juriesIn general, any court exercising Appellate jurisdiction (i.e. review) rather than Original (i.e. trial) jurisdiction will never have a jury, as they are not concerned with whether the defendant is guilty or not, but rather than if all points of law are correctly followed.In addition, if the Court in question is dealing with a type of infraction known as summary offense, then there is no jury, by definition. Typical summary offenses are: traffic tickets, parking or building code citations, etc. Generally speaking, a summary offense is something that incurs a fine but never imprisonment.
What would happen if federal courts decide divorce cases?
You don't have to bother speculating. Federal courts do not, and never will, decide divorce actions.
What kind of court is the US Court of Appeals?
Judges serving on the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts are appointed by the President, then approved by a simple majority (51%) vote of the Senate. Most federal judges are appointed to their positions, but a few are hired directly. Federal judges are never elected.
Do appellate courts discover if you are innocent or guilty?
Any Court of Appeals can render a verdict on a case. However, the defendant can still appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the chances of the Supreme Court hearing the case are smaller.NOTE: Trials and courts never find defendants INNOCENT!! They can only find them Guilty or Not Guilty.Additional Answer:Appellate courts do not "discover if you are innocent or guilty." Determination of innocence or guilt is done only at the trial court level either by a jury or by the judge in a bench trial where the defendant has waived his right to a jury trial or where no jury trial is required. Appellate courts simply determine whether the trial court verdict of "guilty" was proper or not, and if so, it will affirm that finding. No appellate court can review a finding of "not guilty."
Who is an appellate lawyer?
An appellate lawyer is one who specializes in handling cases in the Appellate and Supreme Court of the various state and federal court systems. They assume responsibility for a case once it has moved through the trial phase to determine whether the decision of the trial judge or jury conforms to existing law and legal precedent.
These courts are never the first to hear a case?
Courts of Appeal.
A state misdemeanor case is likely to start an appellate court?
No, never at the appelate level.
Why don't the easy cases reach the supreme court?
The U.S. Supreme Court was originally created to decide the constituionality of laws. They are supposed to bring the case down to the basic question of law and then render a decision. So easy cases are never heard because the basis for decions has never been challenged because it is straight forward. The process to reach the supreme court is also lengthy. There are several appellate courts that the case has to go through to get to the phase where the supreme court can even consider it. Then they get to decide if the case deserves a review. Often times the supreme court renders decisions based on interpretation of law and that can be biased. Also social influences can have an affect on the outcome of cases. This is especially true in cases that involve terrorism. The only cases that the supreme court can render on as the first or original court are those cases involving disputes between states.
What do city courts do?
you will never know
How can a state court avoid review of a case by the US Supreme Court?
The only state courts eligible to have cases reviewed by the US Supreme Court are the state supreme courts or court of appeals immediately under the state supreme court (if that court declines review), because a case must exhaust all appellate options before any party can petition the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. State supreme courts can avoid having their cases reviewed by never accepting a case that involves questions of federal or constitutional law. Barring that, they could pay careful attention to case law and not make a ruling in conflict with an established precedent. Barring that, they can only hope whoever loses the state supreme court appeal doesn't petition the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari or, if they do, hope that the case isn't sufficiently compelling that it attracts four of the Justices' interest.
Is there anything invented in BC?
Do you mean British Columbia or Before Christ??? Never mind, in both cases, the answer is, "Yes".
