| POST-TRIAL PROCEDURES
Q. Is there anything left for a victorious plaintiff to do?
A. Winning a civil verdict is only the first crucial step in
a plaintiff's efforts to secure
compensation for his or her injury or loss. After the judge enters judgment
in favor of the plaintiff, he or she still must acquire a judicial order
commanding the defendant to pay the compensation awarded.
If a defendant against whom you have won a judgment does not pay it, collection
proceedings can be initiated. If the defendant owns property, for example,
you may be able to
foreclose on it. Another option would be to garnish the defendant's wages.
Your lawyer--or any lawyer you contact--would be able to help you in this
regard.
Q. What options does the losing party have?
A. In addition to seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
as discussed above, the losing
party may also ask the court to throw out the verdict and order a new
trial on grounds that the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that serious errors or
other misconduct were
committed by the judge; that there was serious misconduct on the part
of a juror, lawyer, witness or party; that the verdict was too large;
or that vitally important evidence that could not have been discovered
before the end of the trial has only now been discovered. If these "new
trial" motions do not succeed, the party may choose to appeal the
verdict to an appellate court.
Q. How can a party appeal an adverse judgment?
A. The losing party (or a prevailing party contending that it
was awarded insufficient damages)
may seek review of the trial court's judgment in a higher court. In the
federal system, the party will appeal to the court of appeals in the appropriate
circuit.
In those states that have an intermediate appellate court, parties challenging
trial court
decisions generally must bring their appeal to the intermediate court
first. For virtually all criminal appeals, the intermediate appellate
court must accept the case because the court's jurisdiction is mandatory.
However, because intermediate appellate courts often have some limited
discretion to determine which civil cases they will hear, not all civil
appeals will necessarily be accepted, in which case the lower court's
verdict will stand.
The most common exception to this pattern of review occurs in death penalty
cases. In all
instances, death-penalty appeals bypass the state's intermediate appellate
court and go directly to the state's court of last resort. In the twelve
states without intermediate appellate courts, civil and criminal litigants
bring their appeals directly to the court of last resort.
Q. How do appellate courts work?
A. An appellate court typically concerns itself solely with issues
of law. An appeal is not the time to retry the case or to reargue the
facts. Instead, in an appeal, the "appellant" must persuade
the court to "reverse" the trial court's judgment because of
some significant legal errors that occurred during the trial which could
have skewed the result, such as evidence improperly admitted or
excluded, or the judge instructing the jury to apply an incorrect interpretation
of the law. The
"appellee," on the other hand, will seek to persuade the court
that no such errors were made in the lower court or that, if there was
an error, it was "harmless" because it did not affect the outcome.
A transcript of the district court proceedings, together with all of the
original papers and exhibits, will be forwarded to the court for consideration
in deciding the appeal.
Q. What is oral argument?
A. Prior to oral argument, the judges who will hear the case
read the briefs. The judges also
examine the record compiled in the trial court. At oral argument the judges
will listen to the
arguments of the attorneys for the parties and may question the attorneys
about the case and how the law should be applied to the case. Typically
each side is allotted one half hour in which to orally present its case.
However, an appellate court is free to grant more or less time, based
on the significance or complexity of the case. After oral argument, each
judge votes on whether to affirm or reverse the trial court's judgment,
in whole or in part. The court then issues a written opinion explaining
its decision. As a general rule, the parties will not know the outcome
of the case until the written opinion is released.
An appellate court is not required to hear oral argument in any case.
Thus, the court may
issue a decision or summary order based solely on its re view of the record
and the written briefs that present the arguments of the parties in detail.
As a general rule, however, appeals cases are scheduled for oral argument.
If the case is before an intermediate appellate court, the argument will
be heard by a panel of three judges. However, in certain important cases
before an intermediate court, the oral argument will be heard "en
banc," that is, heard by all of the judges of before the
United States Supreme Court and state supreme courts are en
banc.)
Q. Must an appellate court reach a unanimous decision?
A. No. The judge or judges who disagree with the majority's result
may write a dissent to explain their disagreement. If a judge agrees with
the result reached by the majority but disagrees with its explanation
of why the law compelled that result, he or she may write a separate opinion
"concurring" in the judgment.
Q. What recourse is there for the party who loses at the intermediate
appellate level?
A. He or she now can seek review in the highest court in the
system. In the federal system, of
course, that court is the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition
to the decisions of the
United States Courts of Appeal, the United States Supreme Court has the
jurisdiction, but not the obligation, to review the final decisions of
state supreme courts (or even of lower state courts if the party was unable
to secure additional review within the state courts) so long as the case
is the sort of case described in Article III of the U.S. Constitution
and was not decided on "adequate and independent state grounds."
When the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a case, which it does in
the vast majority of cases that are presented to it, the decision of the
lower federal or state court remains the last word on the matter.
Q. How does the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether to hear a case?
A. In the usual course, a party seeking review in the U.S. Supreme
Court will file a petition asking the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari."
This petition will include a copy of the lower court's opinion in the
case and a brief stating why the Court should agree to review it. The
"respondent," who typically does not wish the Court to hear
the case because he or she is satisfied with the opinion by the court
of appeals, may file a brief in opposition to the petition. The Court
will then either deny the petition (its action in most cases) or grant
it, and command the federal or state court to transmit the record of the
case to the U.S. Supreme Court for its review. In his book The Supreme
Court: How It Was, How It Is (Morrow and Co., NY 1987), Chief Justice
Rehnquist describes the process of selecting which petitions to grant
as being influenced by the justices' views on three major factors: whether
the lower court's opinion is in conflict with the opinions of other courts;
the general importance of the case; and whether the lower court's decision
may be wrong in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's previous opinions.
Q. What is the effect of granting certiorari?
A. If a writ of certiorari is granted, the case will be set for
briefing and oral argument in much the same way it was in the intermediate
court of appeals. If the Court reaches the "merits" of the case
(that is, the ultimate issues), its decision will be binding, final and
the law of the land. Frequently, however, the Court will "remand"
the case back to the lower court with instructions that the court reconsider
its earlier opinion in light of the Supreme Court's clarification of how
the relevant constitutional or statutory provisions should be applied
and interpreted.
Q. What is the effect of denying certiorari?
A. In a civil case, the opinion of the trial court or, if there
was an intermediate appeal, the opinion of the appellate court stands
as the final judgment and the case will be over. If certiorari was sought
from a decision in a criminal case, however, the unsuccessful petitioner
may have one more avenue to pursue.
Federal courts have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to permit
prisoners to
challenge their convictions as having been wrongfully obtained in violation
of the U.S.
Constitution. Thus, if a state criminal defendant has "exhausted"
his state remedies by seeking
review in both the state intermediate court of appeals and state supreme
court (and perhaps even through the state version of habeas corpus), the
U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari does not foreclose the prisoner
from obtaining another round of review in the federal court system through
the writ of habeas corpus. This is so because the U.S. Supreme Court's
denial of certiorari is in no way a ruling on the merits of the case,
but merely a "decision not to decide" the case.
|
