A new trial will be granted if there were errors.
Once an appeal is filed and the court agrees to hear it, it is a waiting game. There is no testimony in an appeals case so you don't go back to court. The appeals process is there to make sure no errors were done courtside. It is there to review evidence, etc. and make sure the court proceedings were done appropriately and to all legal specifications. It does not find guilt or innocence. If the appeals court finds something wrong the case will be thrown out and you can still be charged again. If they find all is well, the conviction will stick.
hypocondriac
Actually a court of appeals cannot decide that. A court of appeals can only decide whether or not the trial court correctly followed procedures and existing legal precedence. It is entirely possible for procedures and legal precedence to be completely unfair (they have been many times) but if the trial court properly followed them, the court of appeals must support the trial court's decision. If the court of appeals decides that the trial court failed to follow procedures and/or existing legal precedent, then the case must be retried in a trial court.
God knows about it, so the answer is no.
Circuit Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court.
That would be a hypocondriac (unsure of spelling)
The "verdict" of an appeals court is generally limited to either affirming or voiding the decision of the lower court. If they void it, they will generally remand it to the lower court, which basically means telling the lower court "Here's what you did wrong. Now do it again, keeping this in mind."
it is basically that when someone does something wrong and hides it and the person harmed by it finds out and takes revenge, then it becomes known that the wrong has taken place
The US Courts of Appeals Circuit Courts hear appeals from US District Courts under their appellate jurisdiction. They do not hear cases of original jurisdiction (trials).Appellate courts review the written account of the case with the appeal lawyer's statements of the mistakes made during the trial or of misapplied laws or constitutional challenges.Example: At a simpler level, I used to explain to my students that the judge supervises the lawyers and the appeals court supervises the judge. The judge decides when lawyers argue with each other and keeps the trial flowing. Thus if the judge sides with one lawyer the appeals court can say he made a mistake. The judge stops a particular line of questioning. The appeals court can say he should not have done so. If the judge gives incorrect incorrect instructions to the jury, the appeals court can say he did it wrong.
Not all federal courts are trial courts. Some are appeal courts. Appeal courts only review cases already heard by trial courts. Some lower courts are specialized and only have trials on specific issues. The Supreme Court has only heard appeals since 1924. The Supreme Court reserves the right to hold a trial. No one has suggested any reason why the Supreme Court would sit as a court of original jurisdiction. Still, it could.
you can go to court, ask them to fix it, or do nothing
idk but when i click on it to put songs on my ipod nano it says something about court