1. Why do Appeals courts deal with only legal issues?
Many litigants misapprehend the role of appellate review. The judicial system distinguishes between issues of fact and issues of law. The trial jury (or judge when no jury is used) determines the facts of the case, while appellate courts review only the legal aspects of the case. One reason that appellate courts do not reopen the facts in a case is that the jury and trial court occupied a better position from which to judge the credibility of the evidence presented.
Example: Assume Andy is a witness in a criminal trial that testifies that the criminal defendant was with him on the night of the crime. Although his words clearly state that the defendant spent the evening assembling care packages for charity causes, he shifts around in his chair a great deal. Additionally, his voice shakes and he sweats profusely. If the appellate court reconsidered the evidence from the transcript, it might find the testimony more persuasive without knowledge of the witness's suggestive body language and demeanor.
Another reason that appellate courts review legal issues instead of factual matters is that limiting the factual record to issues raised at trial aids predictability and stability in society. If a plaintiff won a case but the defendant retained the ability to keep bringing in more witnesses and documentary evidence after trial, the issue would never finally get resolved and the public would lose faith in the judicial system. Finally, the court system simply does not have the resources to allow trial procedures to continue indefinitely. These reasons underline the importance of bringing all-important evidence out at trial.
2. What are the prerequisites to raising a legal issue on appeal
Even though appellate courts have the power to review legal issues, it may not consider those arguments that were not preserved for appeal. Appellate courts rule on whether the trial court committed errors that justify a change in the trial verdict; however, the appellate court will not hear arguments regarding legal issues that the lawyers did not mention at the time they arose. To receive full appellate review, counsel must have objected on the record to whatever legal issue is later raised as error.
If no objection was made, the appeals court will change the verdict only for plain or structural error. Plain error is a mistake so obvious and significant that no judge in his right mind would have acted in that way. The plain error must carry a real risk of a miscarriage of justice for appellate relief to be granted. Structural error affecting the fundamental fairness of the proceeding may also cause reversal on appeal even where the lawyer did not object.
Even if counsel raises an objection at trial and the trial judge did err, the appellate court will grant relief only if the error was harmful. If the error did not affect the outcome, the appeals court will not change the trial court's verdict. Most trial court errors are found harmless under this analysis on appeal.
3. What is a statute of limitations
A statute of limitations is a legal deadline by which a plaintiff must start a lawsuit. If the plaintiff does not start his or her lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations runs out, then he or she is barred from bringing the action. Both the federal and state legal systems use statutes of limitation in order to prevent old claims from coming out many years later contrary to the expectations of all the parties. Additionally, statutes of limitation help ensure the relevant evidence is available for review at trial. The time period varies by the type of lawsuits and the jurisdiction, so it is important to find out what the time limits are for each specific case. Even a strong case can be dismissed if brought hours after the statute of limitations deadline.
While the idea of a time limit may seem simple, it can be difficult to tell when the statute of limitations starts running. Some limitations begin to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim.
Example: If ABC Roofing installed a new roof on a house that started to leak right away, but the homeowner did not look in the attic for eighteen years to notice the water damage, the homeowner has waited too long to bring a suit against ABC. Even though the homeowner just found out about the damage, he could have been reasonably expected to find the problem in a shorter length of time. |
