Re: (legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
At 06:06 PM 5/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
You can appeal directly on the merits. And you do so. The higher court decides all questions of law de novo (ie pays no deference ot tyhe decision of the court below beyond whatever persuasive power it may have), but must accept the factual record as presented ("found") by the court below. Thus the importance of the trial testimony at this stage.
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. One question regarding the "de novo," if a lower court decides to restrict its ruling to a specific aspect of the case ("indecency") can the higher court broaden the scope of its ruling, or must its ruling be with specific regards to the scope of the lower court. (I don't know if the appeal can be on the basis of the scope.) BTW: This is what a lawyer/professor was able to tell me. As you can see I was thinking of a garbled version of a jury trial: I'm not familiar with the case, so I cannot speak to its specifics, however here is the general concept of appeals in the U.S. Courts: At the trial of any case there are two categories of issues to be resolved--those called "factual" issues and those called "legal" issues. Only legal issues are subject to appeal in a higher court. If there is a jury trial, the "facts" are what the jury decides (including, en route to their decision, which witnesses to believe) and this is called the verdict. The verdict per se is not subject to appeal. The "law" is what the judge decides, and can include matters of procedure as well as matters of substance. Typically these are decisions about what evidence to admit, what instructions to give to the jury, what motions to grant or deny, etc. All of this is subject to appeal. If the appeal necessitates a new trial, the new jury starts over with new testimony, and reaches its own conclusion on the facts--but this is not really an "appeal" of the first jury's verdict. If there is no jury at the first trial, the trial judge wears both hats, finding the facts and making conclusions of law--but keeping these decisions separate in his or her opinion. Only the judge's conclusions of law in such trials are subject to appeal. _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle@mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
On Tue, 14 May 1996, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. One question regarding the "de novo," if a lower court decides to restrict its ruling to a specific aspect of the case ("indecency") can the higher court broaden the scope of its ruling, or must its ruling be with specific regards to the scope of the lower court. (I don't know if the appeal can be on the basis of the scope.)
If the legal issue was presented for decision below, and forms a part of the notice of appeal, then it is properly preented to the court of appeal, regardless of what the court below actually did. Any other rule would allow a trial court to prevent issues from being reviewed. The Supreme Court has been known, however, to decide issues that went beyond the strict confines of these limits. Even things that weren't argued by the parties.... If the appellate decision requires more facts in order to apply the legal principle decided by the higher court, it has the option of remanding the case to the trial court for more fact-finding in light of the legal rules explicated by the higher court. [...] [I am away from Miami from May 8 to May 28. I will have no Internet connection from May 22 to May 29; intermittent connections before then.] A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm there.
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-May-96 Re: (legal) Re: CDA Dispatch. by Michael Froomkin@law.mia
If the legal issue was presented for decision below, and forms a part of the notice of appeal, then it is properly preented to the court of appeal, regardless of what the court below actually did. Any other rule would
Speaking of appeals, I've been thinking about what happens with the CDA. Okay, so we have two court cases going on, the Shea v. Reno case in NYC and the coalition lawsuits combined in Philly. What happens if the DoJ loses both the NYC and Philly cases and (as they said they would) appeals to the Supreme Court. Won't they take the weaker of the two cases, which is Shea's? And what happens if we win but Shea loses -- does the DoJ appeal in Philly and Shea appeals in NYC? If we lose, does our appeal automatically go to the Supreme Court? The language in the statute is unclear here -- it only specifices what happens when the law is declared unconstitutional. But if it isn't, can't the DoJ argue that our appeal should go to the Third Circuit instead? -Declan
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
Speaking of appeals, I've been thinking about what happens with the CDA. Okay, so we have two court cases going on, the Shea v. Reno case in NYC and the coalition lawsuits combined in Philly.
What happens if the DoJ loses both the NYC and Philly cases and (as they said they would) appeals to the Supreme Court. Won't they take the weaker of the two cases, which is Shea's?
If they lose they are almost certain to appeal both cases. If they don't appeal a loss, it means that plaintiffs won, i.e. get what they asked for. The government isn't going to sit still for that while another case is proceeding.
And what happens if we win but Shea loses -- does the DoJ appeal in Philly and Shea appeals in NYC?
No problem with two sides each appealing different verdicts to the supreme court. That's what it's for - to sort things out and make the circuits consistent.
If we lose, does our appeal automatically go to the Supreme Court? The language in the statute is unclear here -- it only specifices what happens when the law is declared unconstitutional. But if it isn't, can't the DoJ argue that our appeal should go to the Third Circuit instead?
Sorry, I don't recall the language well enough and I'm on the road. I thought it went to the Supremes no mater what; that's the usual practice, but i could be wrong. there is a procedure for by-passing the Court of Appeal in urgent cases. Also, if one case is on a slow track and the other one is on a fast track, there are procedures for getting involved, at least as amici, in the fast track case. [I am away from Miami from May 8 to May 28. I will have no Internet connection from May 22 to May 29; intermittent connections before then.] A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm there.
participants (3)
-
Declan B. McCullagh -
Joseph M. Reagle Jr. -
Michael Froomkin