In an appeals case what do the judges decide?

The Appeals Court judges can find that the judgment in the court case before them is either affirmed, or they may overturn the judgment. If overturned they must cite the their reasoning, which is usually legal or procedural insufficiency.

- - - - - - - - - -

At trial, the judge makes various legal rulings about evidence, procedure, and the controlling law, and instructs the jury about the law and how to apply it. The jury determines the credibility of the witnesses and evidence and applies the law to reach a verdict. On appeal, a party typically contends that the trial judge erred with regard to one or more of his or her legal rulings. The party does so in an opening brief that states the error, the law, and why the party believes the trial court erred. The opposing party is permitted to submit an answer brief, and the appealing party is permitted to file a reply brief. The parties sometimes ask to present oral arguments to the appellate court. Such requests are not always granted.

The appeals court then reviews the briefs, the record of the trial, applicable law, and considers the parties' oral arguments. The appellate judges then confer about the case.

Evidentiary rulings are usually reviewed for abuse of discretion. That is, whether, under existing law, the ruling was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair. Rulings about the applicable law are reviewed de novo. That is, the appeals court considers the legal issue to determine whether the trial court's ruling was correct or erroneous under existing law.

Jury findings of fact are given deference and may only be reversed if there is no evidence upon which a reasonable person could have made that finding.

A determination that there was an error does not necessarily result in reversal of the case. When the appellate court concludes there was an error, it must then decide whether the error prejudiced the losing party's right to a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case. If there was no prejudice, the error is considered to be harmless.

Appeals are most commonly decided by three or more judges, a majority of whom must agree on the outcome. The outcome of a trial may be affirmed, reversed, or affirmed in part and reversed in part. Occasionally more information is needed before the appeal can be fully resolved. When that happens, the appeals court may remand (return) the case to the trial court for additional proceedings to address the issue.

When the legal issues are straightforward and have been fully resolved in other cases, and the law's application to the facts of the case are clear, an appeals court will often issue a "per curiam" (by the court) opinion that briefly refers to the applicable cases and announces the result of the appeal. In other cases, one of the appellate judges writes an opinion that identifies the errors the parties have presented, explains whether the trial court's decision is being reviewed for abuse of discretion or de novo, explains the applicable law in some detail, explains how the law applies to the particular facts of the case, and states the conclusion of the majority of the judges that have reviewed the case. The written opinion demonstrates to the parties that their contentions and arguments have been considered, and provides feedback to the trial judge. If one of the party's believes the appellate court's decision is erroneous, they often have the right ask a higher appellate court, usually a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Some appellate opinions are published in collections of legal decisions and serve as precedent for future cases.