Appeals and other methods of review

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 589.

A judgment of a court of first instance may be attacked either by appeal to a higher court or by a request for some form of review of the judgment by the court that rendered it. Thus, it is quite generally possible for a defendant who has defaulted to ask a court to reopen the case and hear it on its merits. In Anglo-American courts, it is frequently possible to ask for a new trial. In some cases (if, for example, there is newly discovered evidence) procedures analogous to motions for a new trial exist in European countries. In certain countries and in some states of the United States, an appeal of a judgment that is not a final decision can be made in addition to appeals of final decisions.

The appeal process is somewhat different in civil-law and common-law countries. In Europe the appeal from the court of first instance to the intermediate appellate court ordinarily involves a reexamination of the entire case, both the law and the facts, and new evidence frequently can be introduced. An appeal to the supreme or highest court is restricted to matters of law. In the Anglo-American system, on the other hand, both the intermediate appellate court and the supreme court examine only the written record created in the court below and do not receive new evidence. Furthermore, review is generally restricted to matters of law, though the scope of review is broader in the intermediate appellate court than the supreme court. Rules of appeal in all systems tend to combine the desire that justice be done and error be corrected with the desire to find some point at which the proceedings will end and judgment will be deemed final.