The point of this blog is to capture my own class notes during my tenure as a law student. Everything on here is my own work and reflects the knowledge and understanding of the law I possessed at the time. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License. Please do not rely on this blog for legal advice. Consult an attorney for proper legal counseling.

April 13, 2007

Standard of Review in an Appeal
Related Articles:

,

Standard of Review: differing levels of deference to something that has come before.

  • How much are we going to defer to someone/something that has come before?
    • Precedent for example, has a high level of deference.
    • Res judicata = "super precedent"
      • Total, absolute deference
  • What has the trial court done? Impacts level of review.
    • de novo
      • N0 deference, as if done for the first time
      • Not quite "I don't care what they did" because appeals court may be persuaded by trial court's arguments.
    • "clearly erroneous"
      • Very deferential standard of review.
      • Did trial court judge act outside the bounds of propriety/reasonableness?
      • Example: Plaintiff sued city because didn't get job as recreation director.
        • Brought suit claiming decision not to hire based on her gender.
        • Tried before a judge (bench trial).
          • Title VII is new.
          • No analogue to antidiscrimination law in 1791.
          • So look to nature of remedy.
          • Congress says "injunctive relief" and back pay:
            • could be thought of as damages (legal) OR
            • restitution (equitable).
          • Congress characterized back pay as equitable originally.
          • So lots of Title VII cases (especially pre-90s amendment) involve bench trials not jury trials.
        • Trial court decided that reasons for choosing man were pretextual
          • Not necessarily due to gender discrimination though.
          • But still trial court concludes gender was a factor in decision not to hire.
        • 4th Circuit reverses, saying findings "clearly erroneous."
        • SCOTUS says 4th Circuit didn't have the right frame of mind.
          • 4th Circuit wasn't deferential enough to trial court judge.
      • Reminiscent of standard for granting new trials (Linds v. Shelley).
        • Like trial court reviewing jury verdict.
      • People have more confidence in abilities of self (or judge/jury in trial court) to determine inconsistencies than is warranted.
        • In reality, "cold written record" often puts one in a better position to determine credibility!
      • Besides, deference required under Rule 52 (Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings) applies whether or not there was live testimony.
    • "Harmless error"
      • Even when a mistake has been made, don' want to undo it unless if impacted the "bottom line."
      • Embodied in "the harmless error statute": 28 U.S.C. §2111 (Yeazell, p.653)
      • Who has burden of proof on this?
        • Tends to be on side defending trial court judgment must show harmlessness (certainly true in criminal context!)
      • Then what is the standard by which burden must be met?
        • Probable?
        • More likely than not?
        • Clear and convincing?
          • Usually done by this standard.