Appeals Process After a Criminal Trial: Key Steps and What to Expect

When a criminal trial ends, the case might not be over. We can challenge a court’s decision if we believe there was a mistake during the trial. This is called the appeals process, and it gives us another chance to ask for a fair result.

A lawyer reviewing documents while a judge sits at a bench in a courtroom.

Understanding how appeals work is important for anyone involved in the criminal justice system. We’ll look at the steps in the appeals process and explain what options are available if a verdict does not go our way.

Overview of the Appeals Process After a Criminal Trial

A courtroom scene with a judge, lawyers, and a client engaged in the appeals process after a criminal trial.

The appeals process gives people found guilty of a crime a way to challenge the court’s decision. This is an important step in the justice system and has specific rules that must be followed.

What Is an Appeal

An appeal is a formal request for a higher court to review the decision made by a lower court in a criminal case. We do not get a new trial with witnesses or evidence. Instead, the appeals court looks at what happened during the original trial and decides if the law was applied correctly.

Only certain reasons, called “grounds for appeal,” allow us to challenge the verdict. These can include legal errors, problems with how evidence was handled, or mistakes made by the judge. The appeals process does not let us claim that we simply disagree with the decision. We are required to show a legal or procedural error that may have affected the outcome.

Purpose of the Appeals Process

The main purpose of the criminal appeals process is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and that the law is followed correctly. Appeals help us check whether the original trial followed the rules set by the court system and our constitution.

If a serious error is found, the appeals court may change the verdict or order a new trial. This helps keep the justice system honest and reliable. The appeals process acts as a safeguard so that mistakes or unfair treatment do not go ignored. It also creates clear standards for the way courts handle criminal cases in the future.

Key Participants in a Criminal Appeal

A judge, appellate lawyer, defendant with attorney, court clerk, and stenographer in a courtroom during a criminal appeal process.

Several specific roles are involved in a criminal appeal. Each plays a vital part in how the appeal moves through the judicial system and how decisions are made.

Defendant and Legal Representation

The defendant is the person who was convicted in the trial court. During the appeal, defendants usually rely on legal counsel. Many choose a new attorney for the appeal process because appeals focus more on legal mistakes than on the facts of the case.

Having a lawyer with experience in appellate law is important. The appeals process is different from a trial. We must follow strict rules about the evidence and arguments we can present. The defendant and their legal team work together to review records, look for errors in the trial, and prepare documents for the appellate court.

Sometimes, the defendant may only communicate with the court through their attorney. Direct contact between the defendant and appellate judges is rare. The defendant’s rights and interests are represented by their attorney at every step of the appeal.

Role of the Appellate Attorney

An appellate attorney is a lawyer who specializes in appeals. Unlike lawyers at trial, appellate attorneys focus on analyzing legal records and identifying mistakes that happened during the trial in the lower court.

We write detailed legal briefs explaining why the conviction or sentence should be reversed or changed. These briefs point out legal errors and reference past court decisions from higher courts that support our argument. Oral arguments may also be given in front of the appellate judges, where we answer their questions.

The appellate attorney is responsible for following the unique rules that apply in appellate courts. This includes strict deadlines, page limits, and the correct formatting of documents. The goal is to persuade the appellate court that a mistake in the criminal justice system requires a new trial or a different outcome.

Appellate Judges and Courts

Appellate judges are different from trial judges. They do not decide if someone is guilty or innocent. Instead, they review the trial court’s actions to decide if the law was applied correctly.

Appellate courts examine the records and legal arguments from both sides. Most decisions are made by a panel of several judges rather than just one. These judges decide the case based on the written briefs and, sometimes, short oral arguments. They do not hear witnesses or consider new evidence.

The appellate court can confirm the lower court’s decision, reverse it, send the case back for a new trial, or order a different sentence. These decisions are usually final unless a higher court, like a state supreme court or the Supreme Court of the United States, agrees to review the case. Appellate judges play a key role in ensuring the legal process is fair and follows the law.

Grounds for Appeal in Criminal Cases

When someone is convicted of a crime, there are several reasons why an appeal might be filed. These reasons often focus on serious mistakes during the trial, problems with legal representation, or a lack of proof.

Legal Errors and Mistakes

A major ground for appeal is a legal error that occurred during the trial. This can include the judge allowing evidence that should have been excluded or stopping evidence that should have been admitted. For example, if important witness statements were not allowed, this could affect the outcome.

Other examples are jury instructions that were wrong or unclear. If the judge gave incorrect directions to the jury about the law, it can be appealed. Prosecutorial misconduct, such as withholding evidence helpful to our case, can also be a legal error.

We can also appeal based on constitutional violations, such as our rights being violated during the trial process. Sometimes, double jeopardy issues arise, meaning someone is tried twice for the same crime, which is not allowed.

Key types of legal errors:

Wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence
Misleading jury instructions
Prosecutorial misconduct
Constitutional violations
Double jeopardy

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Another common ground for appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel. This happens when our lawyer did not do their job properly or failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney would.

For an appeal based on this ground, we need to show two main things:

Our lawyer’s actions were far below what is expected of a lawyer.
This failure changed the result of our case.

Some mistakes might include not interviewing important witnesses, failing to challenge damaging evidence, or missing deadlines for filing important motions. If our lawyer’s actions were bad enough to make the trial unfair, this can give us a reason to appeal.

Common examples:

Not investigating facts or witnesses
Failing to file key motions
Not raising obvious legal arguments

Insufficient Evidence or Wrongful Conviction

We can also appeal if there was not enough evidence to support a conviction. If no reasonable jury could have found us guilty based on the evidence, this provides grounds for appeal.

Insufficient evidence claims often focus on the prosecution not proving every part of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If crucial proof was missing or weak, we can argue that the verdict was not supported by facts.

Wrongful convictions can also happen due to juror misconduct or bias. For example, if a juror used outside information or failed to follow the court’s instructions, this can be challenged on appeal.

Main reasons for appeal:

Weak or missing evidence
Juror misconduct or bias
Verdict not supported by facts presented

Initiating the Appeals Process

We must follow several key steps to start the appeals process after a criminal trial. Each step is governed by strict procedural rules, legal requirements, and set time frames that we need to understand and meet.

Filing a Notice of Appeal

The first step we take is filing a notice of appeal. This is a formal document that tells the court we are challenging the verdict or sentence from the criminal trial.

We must file the notice of appeal with the same court where the trial happened. In most jurisdictions, this must be done in writing. The notice includes the names of the parties, the judgment we are appealing, and the specific case number.

It’s important to use the correct form and follow local court rules. If we make a mistake with the paperwork, our appeal could be delayed or rejected. Some states or courts have special requirements, such as paying a filing fee or including copies of certain documents. The notice of appeal does not explain why we are appealing; it only starts the process.

Meeting Strict Deadlines

Deadlines are critical in the appeals process. Missing a deadline can mean losing the right to appeal completely.

Most courts require the notice of appeal to be filed very soon after the final judgment. For example, the deadline might be 30 days after sentencing. Some cases allow even less time. We should not delay or wait until the last minute.

Procedural rules and case law shape these deadlines. Extensions are rare and often not allowed unless there is a strong legal reason. It’s our responsibility to know exactly when the deadline is in our case and to act quickly. Even a small error could end our chance to appeal.

Obtaining the Trial Record

After filing the notice of appeal, we need the full trial record. This record includes all documents, motions, decisions, and especially the trial transcript.

The trial transcript is a typed record of everything said during the trial. It is usually prepared by a court reporter. We usually have to request and sometimes pay for the transcript.

The trial record is crucial because the appeals court reviews what happened at the trial, not new facts or evidence. If we cannot provide a full and clear trial record, our appeal may fail. We should double-check that all required documents are included.

Often, local rules list exactly what needs to go in the record. Following these rules is important for our appeal to move forward smoothly.

Elements of the Appellate Review

During appellate review, we focus on identifying legal errors made in the trial, not on re-examining facts or evidence. The process centers on written arguments and presentations that challenge or defend the trial court’s decisions.

Preparing Appellate Briefs

Appellate briefs are the main documents we use to explain our side. These legal briefs must follow strict rules about their format and length. In them, we state the main legal issues, explain how the law should apply, and cite past cases and statutes to support our point.

We must be clear and specific. The brief always starts with a summary of the case facts, then lays out the arguments in order. We use bullet points or numbered lists to organize large sections or arguments.

Some key elements in appellate briefs:

Statement of the Issues: What questions of law are being challenged
Argument Section: Detailed explanation using legal authorities
Conclusion: What we want the appellate court to do

A well-prepared brief helps the appellate court see our reasoning and the errors made during the trial.

Presenting Legal Arguments

After submitting our appellate briefs, we may also present oral arguments to the appellate court. This step is our chance to answer any questions judges have about our written arguments. We explain what legal errors occurred and why those errors affected the outcome of the trial.

During oral argument, we do not bring in new evidence. Instead, we focus on explaining and defending the points already in our brief. Our goal is to clarify complicated legal issues and address any concerns from the judges.

A strong legal argument uses examples from past cases and laws. We must be ready to respond quickly if judges challenge our position or seek further clarification. Effective presentation requires preparation and an understanding of both our case and the law.

Oral Arguments Before the Appellate Court

When a criminal case goes to appeal, both sides may present oral arguments in front of the appellate court. These arguments help clarify the written briefs, allowing judges to ask questions and focus on important legal points.

Purpose and Procedure

The main goal of oral arguments is to give the lawyers a chance to discuss their case in person with the judges. Appellate courts often set strict time limits for each side, sometimes only 10–30 minutes per side.

During this time, lawyers speak directly to the judges, not to a jury. They answer questions from the judges and may need to explain parts of their written briefs.

There is no new evidence or witness testimony during oral arguments. We must rely on the trial record and what was already submitted.

Lawyers may be interrupted often with questions. This helps judges test the strength of each argument and find out if any errors from the trial court affected the outcome.

Role of Oral Arguments in Appeals

Oral argument is our chance to highlight the strongest parts of our case and to address concerns the judges might have. Sometimes, judges use this time to clear up unclear points from the written briefs.

Not every appeal includes oral arguments. Some cases are decided just on the written briefs, but in important or complicated cases, oral arguments can make a big difference.

During the argument, we can focus on the main legal issues and respond to questions immediately. This back-and-forth can shape how the appellate court thinks about the case.

While oral arguments rarely introduce new facts, they can point out mistakes in the trial or gaps in the other side’s reasoning, which could help the appellate court decide in our favor.

Possible Outcomes of a Criminal Appeal

When we appeal a criminal conviction, the higher court reviews the lower court’s decision. The court may leave the original outcome unchanged, overturn the conviction, or change the sentence.

Affirmation of Conviction

In many cases, the appeals court affirms the conviction. This means that the original court decision stands and nothing changes for the convicted individual.

The court does this when it finds no major legal errors in the first trial. The facts and law are reviewed, but if the judge or jury acted within the law, the conviction is almost always upheld.

For us, an affirmed conviction means the case is over. The sentence given in the original trial will be carried out as planned. No new trial will happen, and no part of the sentence is changed. At this point, most other legal options are limited and difficult.

Acquittal or New Trial

If the appeals court finds serious legal mistakes, it may reverse the conviction and order an acquittal or a new trial. An acquittal means we are found not guilty, and we are released with no further action needed.

Sometimes, instead of ending the case, the court orders a new trial or retrial. This happens when errors in the original trial affected the fairness or outcome, but the evidence was strong enough for another review. The case goes back to the lower court, where we go through the trial process again.

If a new trial is ordered, it does not guarantee a different outcome. We may be found guilty again or we may be acquitted. Time spent in jail before the decision may affect the next sentence if convicted again.

Modification of Sentence

The appeals court may also modify the sentence if it finds a mistake in how the sentence was decided. This means the conviction remains, but the punishment changes.

Sentence modification happens when the court believes the sentence was too harsh or did not follow sentencing guidelines. The court may lower the prison time, change the type of sentence, or even remove certain penalties.

In this case, we remain convicted, but the conditions of our punishment improve based on the court’s final decision. The judge might impose a lighter sentence, put us on probation, or allow for time served to be counted.

Further Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief

After an initial appeal, we may have more options if the first ruling isn’t in our favor. These legal steps can involve different courts and specific legal arguments.

Appealing to a Higher Court

When the first appeal does not succeed, we can sometimes ask a higher court to review the decision. This is often called a “second-level” or “further” appeal. In state cases, we may appeal to the state’s highest court, sometimes called the state supreme court. In federal cases, the next step may be a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Key points to know:

Not every case is accepted for review. The higher court typically decides which cases to hear.
We usually have to show that there was a serious legal error in the initial trial or first appeal.
The court might affirm, reverse, or send the case back to a lower court.

If the higher state court denies the appeal, we may still have federal options in some cases.

U.S. Supreme Court Review

We can ask the United States Supreme Court to review our case. This is very rare and only happens if the case involves major federal or constitutional questions. The process starts by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Here is what we need to remember:

The Supreme Court reviews only a small fraction of cases that are submitted.
Usually, our case must raise a new or important issue in federal law.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, its decision is final and applies across the country.

Most criminal cases do not reach this level, but the option exists if there are unusual or broad legal concerns.

Special Considerations in the Criminal Appeals Process

Certain aspects of the appeals process need careful attention, especially when a defendant entered a guilty plea or when new evidence is found after the trial. These issues can change the steps we take and the chances of success.

Guilty Plea Appeals

Appealing after a guilty plea is difficult. When we plead guilty, we usually give up many rights to appeal. Our reasons for challenging a guilty plea must be specific and strong.

Common grounds include:

The court did not follow proper procedures
Our plea was not made voluntarily
We received incorrect legal advice

If we prove that our rights were violated or our plea was not truly voluntary, we may get another chance in court. Courts rarely approve appeals after guilty pleas, so it is important to act quickly and clearly explain our reasoning.

Newly Discovered Evidence

Sometimes new evidence comes to light after the trial. Newly discovered evidence can be information or facts we could not have found earlier, even with effort.

The evidence is truly new and was not known at trial
The evidence could lead to a different outcome if a new trial is held

We should gather all proof and present it quickly, since courts have time limits for this process. The new evidence must be reliable and directly affect the verdict or sentence. This can include DNA results, witness statements, or confessions by others.