What are appellate court judges or justices?
Appellate court judges serve as legal reviewers of trial court decisions. They determine whether the substance and procedure of the trial were Constitutionally adequate or sound.
What are the duties of appellate court judges or justices?
The duties of an appellate court judge are distinct from those of a trial judge.
Specifically, the appellate court serves as a legal reviewer of trial court decisions.
It does not generally make determinations about the facts of the case, except in special circumstances (known as De Novo Review); rather, the court reviews the case based on the facts as found by the trial court and present in the trial record.
That is, the appellate court accepts the jury’s findings of fact as true.
As an example, if the jury finds that an individual was driving the car that hit the plaintiff, the appellate court must assume that is true.
The appellate court judges review the case for legal inadequacy and serve the following functions.
How do Appellate Judges determine if the Law was applied correctly?
In reviewing a case, the appellate judges determine if the law was applied correctly to the case.
This process includes reviewing the application of procedural law and substantive law.
If the procedural law is found to have been applied incorrectly, the judges look to determine if the error was prejudicial to the losing party.
If so, the case may be overturned in whole or in part and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
If the substantive law is applied incorrectly, the case is generally overturned and remanded.
The court’s determination of whether the substantive law was applied correctly is generally based on the plain meaning of the statute and legislative intent in passing the statute.
In making this assessment, the appellate judge will look at the legislative notes, prior appellate court opinions, or other indications of how and why the legislature passed the law.
If the law, as applied, does not comply with the intent of the legislature, the appellate court has the ability to overturn the decision (verdict) and remand the case for re-trial.
The court may overturn the entire case or just the charge or cause of action negatively affected by the erroneous application of the law.
How do Appellate Judges determine whether a law is Constitutional?
Appellate judges are responsible for determining whether the law or government action, as applied, is consistent with and does not violate the Constitution.
This generally means evaluating the law based upon the appropriate legal standard: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Rational Basis Standard.
That is, they are charged with the power of interpreting laws and determining if the law, as written, is unconstitutional.
Any law or government action that violates the constitutional rights of an individual is void and unenforceable.
Additionally, if the law in question violates a superior law it will receive a limiting interpretation or be overturned entirely.
An appellate judge’s power to overturn the law is a critical piece of the checks and balances system.
As a result, the legislators who passed the law must start over if they wish to pass another law to achieve their intended purpose.
How do Appellate Judges Develop the Common Law?
Appellate judges render decisions when reviewing a case.
Along with these decisions, the court writes an opinion on how the law was or should have been applied in the case.
The appellate judges written opinion ultimately becomes part of the common law and serves as precedent for lower judges to apply in future cases.
In this way, appellate judges are like legislators interpreting and creating the manner in which the law should be applied.
