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.
If judges on a Court of Appeals determine that a trial was unfair, they may reverse the lower court's decision, potentially ordering a new trial or remanding the case for further proceedings. This can occur if they find significant legal errors, procedural issues, or violations of a party's rights that could have affected the trial's outcome. The appellate court's ruling aims to ensure justice and uphold the integrity of the legal process.
It was unfair because they had no evidence that they were guilty.
you can get a Philippine municipal trial court clearance at your Municipal Trial Court :D
Answer: A right to public a fair trial, is a term used in court. If the judge decides that the trial in court was not fair, or needs a lot of ajustments, then the judge can state a new trial. Which means the trial is public, and any witnesses can be there to see the trial. Example: Man steals a crystal vase from store. A trial begins, And the Man isn't guilty. The judge decides there might be more to the problem, and there should be another "fair" trial. The judge states the trial was unfair, and invites witnesses to come, and see the trial, as they can mention any hidden information. I hope I helped!
A trial court is the court of original jurisdiction.
If you feel that you received an unfair trial or were poorly represented in court, you can file an appeal of your trial findings to the next higher level of the court system, which in most states is the Court Of Appeals. You must be able to cite some specific legal reason for requesting a review of your case, not just the fact that you were "unhappy' with the verdict.
Charles I's trial in 1649 was considered unfair due to several factors, including the lack of a legitimate legal framework, as he was tried by a court established by Parliament without the King's consent. The trial was characterized by a predetermined outcome, with many judges already opposed to the monarchy. Additionally, Charles was denied the right to present a proper defense, and he was not allowed to appeal the proceedings, undermining the principles of justice and due process.
The judge ensures the fair treatment of all participants in a court case by controlling the tone and pace of the trial. The judge also determines if certain evidence may be unfairly prejudicial to the accused and also aims to protect the victims from unfair tactics of the defense attorney.
Supreme courtregional trial courtmetropolitan trial courtmunicipal trial courtintermediate appelate court (formerly court of appeals)ombudsman (tanod bayan)sandiganbayan
trial court
apelleate court sends a case back to the trial court