Appellate procedure in the United States

These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, procedure or due process.

For example, suppose at trial the judge found for the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay $50,000.

The appellee is required to respond to the petition, oral arguments, and legal briefs of the appellant.

In general, the appellee takes the procedural posture that the lower court's decision should be affirmed.

[2] In tort, equity, or other civil matters either party to a previous case may file an appeal.

And due to the double jeopardy principle, the state or prosecution may never appeal a jury or bench verdict of acquittal.

The ability of the prosecution to appeal a decision in favor of a defendant varies significantly internationally.

[dubious – discuss] Relief in post-conviction is rare and is most often found in capital or violent felony cases.

In most jurisdictions the normal and preferred way of seeking appellate review is by filing an appeal of the final judgment.

Generally speaking, "[d]irect appeal statutes afford defendants the opportunity to challenge the merits of a judgment and allege errors of law or fact.

... [Collateral review], on the other hand, provide[s] an independent and civil inquiry into the validity of a conviction and sentence, and as such are generally limited to challenges to constitutional, jurisdictional, or other fundamental violations that occurred at trial."

After exhausting the first appeal as of right, defendants usually petition the highest state court to review the decision.

On direct appeal, a prisoner challenges the grounds of the conviction based on an error that occurred at trial or some other stage in the adjudicative process.

For example, Connecticut applies the following standard to review unpreserved claims: 1.the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; 2. the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; 3. the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; 4. if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

[9] Typical claims might include ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence based on new evidence.

If the petition is granted the appellant could be released from incarceration, the sentence could be modified, or a new trial could be ordered.

The specific rules of the legal system will dictate exactly how the appeal is officially begun.

It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect.

This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony.

If a party is dissatisfied with the finding of such a tribunal, one generally has the power to request a trial "de novo" by a court of record.

Sometimes, however, the decision of the lower proceeding is itself admissible as evidence, thus helping to curb frivolous appeals.

Some examples of reversible error would be erroneously instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case, permitting seriously improper argument by an attorney, admitting or excluding evidence improperly, acting outside the court's jurisdiction, injecting bias into the proceeding or appearing to do so, juror misconduct, etc.

In cases where a judge rather than a jury decided issues of fact, an appellate court will apply an "abuse of discretion" standard of review.

In some cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the lower decision was rendered was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, or may convince the higher court to order a new trial on the basis that evidence earlier sought was concealed or only recently discovered.

In the case of new evidence, there must be a high probability that its presence or absence would have made a material difference in the trial.

The mandate is distinguished from the appeal court's opinion, which sets out the legal reasoning for its decision.

The result of an appeal can be: There can be multiple outcomes, so that the reviewing court can affirm some rulings, reverse others and remand the case all at the same time.

The result for the case of review improvidently granted is effectively the same as affirmed, but without that extra higher court stamp of approval.