Talk:Appeal

Additions by User:Jz1234567

@DissidentAggressor: I didn't notice any specific factual errors in the changes to this article. Can you explain why you removed the content that was added by User:Jz1234567? Jarble (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem now: one of the additions includes a source that is not considered reliable. Jarble (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: Yeah, that editor appears to only be here to promote lauderdalecriminaldefense.com. The Dissident Aggressor 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

I am currently in the process of overhauling this article. I will return over the next few days to continue developing this. Feel free to pitch in if you like -- I plan to add discussion about the "originalist"/"living constitution" debate and the role of appellate judges in the judicial system. Notecardforfree (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Globalize

Beyond the history section there's hardly any specific examples of how courts of appeal works in civil law systems. Moreover, all the specific examples only mention the USA. It also mentions juries despite the fact that plenty of legal systems never (or at least very rarely) use juries and all (or nearly all) criminal or civil cases are only handled by judge(s). Either the article should be slightly reworded to avoid common-law/USA bias or how other justice systems handle appeals need to showcase. 95.155.235.73 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That's something I've been meaning to do for a long time. If you have sources that discuss appellate law and procedure in civil law countries, please feel free to add that information. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Appeal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

sorry i can’t donate

I don’t have money 2603:7000:8401:5F67:49C9:9E52:7DD2:30AB (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Writ of error

Writ of error links redirect to this page. Perhaps a definition of a "writ of error" and how it relates to the legal appeals process would be helpful. Stian (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Writ of error" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Writ of error has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Writ of error until a consensus is reached. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct Misinterpreted Cases and Reference

The below content in paragraph about the US appellate court system is factually incorrect in several regards; - The 'Right to Appeal' always existed as part of the Due Process clauses (5th/6th Amendment), further protected by the unenumerated rights of 9th/10th amendments. - There is no 'Judiciary Act of 1889' related to support a lack of "right to appeal". The Judiciary Act of 1891 (aka Evarts Act, aka Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891). It created a new processes for handling Circuit Court and District Court appeals to alleviate burden of the appeal process on them, and provide a structured Circuit Court of Appeals. - Minnesota whether they 'formally recognize' the right to appeal is irrelevant and should be removed. Supremacy Clause means that US Constitution and US Federal Law supersedes anything Minnesota recognizes (or doesn't recognize) via Minnesota Legislation. This is a pointless comment for a this general page, and at best, should go into a page on Minnesota Legislation.

     NOTE: Spann v State (reference for this statement) is entirely mis-referenced here. It was about whether defendant could waive their right to appeal. Again any reference to that would belong on a Minnesota Legislation specific page, not this generic one. 

IMPORTANTLY: Smith v. Robbins DOES NOT support anything about "The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an appeal". The case is quite complex and nuanced, but a large portion of it involves the appellate (defendant) making arguments whether his appointed counsel was acting in his interest (IE providing adequate legal assistance), or whether they were acting with indifference/against them (and instead aiding the gov by not providing assistance). The brief goes into assessments of older cases like Anders' and Wende (among others).

     The important takeaway was regarding the SCOTUS opinion based on the well-recognized 'right to appellate counsel' (IE If you get a court-appointed attorney, and you lose, the right to receive similar counsel on your appeal. The other big takeaway was whether an appeal was 'frivolous' and without standing or sound reasoning for appeal (IE appealing to just burden the court system). It regarded whether such a frivolous appeal was still a right (and appellate court had to hear Merits, or they could just deny appeal w/o hearing Merits).
      While it is an important case in this regard, as noted; it neither concluded that "there is no federal right to appeal"; nor is it particularly suited for such a generic article as "Appeal" currently is.  

Propose Change:
Add: "and with the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891 it created a Circuit Court of Appeal, which would provide an improved appeals process while also alleviating part of the appellate burden of lower courts by adding 9 Circuit Courts (today 12)."
Remove "but a federal right to appeal did not exist in the United States until 1889, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act to permit appeals in capital cases. Two years later, the right to appeals was extended to other criminal cases, and the United States courts of appeals were established to review decisions from district courts. Some states, such as Minnesota, still do not formally recognize a right to criminal appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an appeal."

References: - Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/259/ - United States Courts. "The Evarts Act: Creating the Modern Appellate Courts". URL: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/evarts-act-creating-modern-appellate-courts 72.131.34.32 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, upon reading and glancing at sources this part of the page is clearly incorrect. The 1889 sentence may have been about a specific type of appeal, but that's not what it says. I found this: "In 1889, Congress gave defendants sentenced to death a right of direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court." (emphasis mine) -- Marc M. Arkin, Rethinking the Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 503, 523 (1992). Given that we shouldn't be sourcing directly to cases for the exact reasons you're laying out, I'm going to make the suggested change. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)