|
Measure
3.3.5: The Integrity of Trial Court Outcomes
Measures
3.3.3 and 3.3.4 address adherence to laws or procedures, which can be
ascertained explicitly and objectively. A complementary approach, which
looks at adherence more broadly, involves the examination of appeals taken
from trial court judgments. The analysis of the outcomes of appeals in terms
of affirmance and reversal patterns will uncover where problems may exist
and point to areas where trial court performance can and should be improved.
Such an examination will shed light on where problems (i.e., reversible
errors) occur. Do problems more frequently arise in particular areas of
civil law such as property and commercial litigation and not in other areas
such as torts? Are problems more common in appeals taken from certain trial
court proceedings such as pretrial motions and not from nonjury trials? Or,
are problems associated with particular issues? For example, in criminal
appeals, how often are suppression issues successful on appeal?
Information
on the nature and rate of reversals will enable individual trial courts to
identify where problem areas exist.35 It will
also be useful in identifying problem areas for all trial courts within a
State and in examining performance over time.36
A step-by-step procedure for examining the decisions of first-level appeals
courts is described below.37
Planning/Preparation.
An examination of appeal outcomes should include all subject areas (e.g.,
civil and criminal). However, because of the constitutional nature of the
issues involved, if a jurisdiction does not have the resources to conduct an
examination of all outcomes, first attention should focus on criminal cases.
The number of cases to be examined will depend on the scope of the inquiry.
In an examination of only civil or criminal appeals, for example, 250 to 300
appeals resolved on the merits will be sufficient in each category to see
broad patterns.
The
information to be collected from each appeal will depend on the subject
matter of the case, which may include:
-
An
area of law or criminal offense (e.g., for civil appeals: tort,
commercial/contract, domestic, property; for criminal appeals: homicide,
other crimes of violence, property crimes).
-
A
trial court proceeding (e.g., jury trial, nonjury trial, pretrial motion,
agency review).
-
The
nature of each issue raised on appeal and its outcome.
-
The
outcome of the appeal.
Additional
information may be included as measures of case complexity (e.g., severity
of the sentence, number of parties, or type of counsel). An example for
collecting the data is presented on Form
3.3.5, Illustrative Outcomes Data Collection Form for Criminal Appeals.
Data
Collection. The
information needed to conduct this measure is available in the case records
of the appeals court, although different sources may have to be checked. The
docket should be the first source consulted to identify the appeals (e.g.,
trial court, subject matter, and resolved on merits). The docket also may be
a source of other information (e.g., type of counsel). The court’s
decision document/opinion is a key source of information on the issues
raised and their treatment. The notice of appeal or docketing statement is a
useful source for background information (e.g., sentence in a criminal
appeal) that may not be provided in the decision document. Finally, it may
be necessary to check the briefs if the court does not file a written
decision or if the decision does not identify the issues the court
considered.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
A variety of basic analyses can shed light on the pattern of appeal outcomes
and the frequency and distribution of error. For example:
-
The
relative frequency of appeals by subject matter, by underlying trial court
proceeding, and by other measures of case complexity.
-
The
relative frequency of outcomes by subject matter, by underlying trial court
proceeding, and by other measures of case complexity.
-
The
relative frequency of issues raised by issue disposition.
These
tabulations help jurisdictions determine whether and the extent to which
cases involving certain areas of law, raising particular issues, and being
resolved in particular trial court proceedings are more likely to pose
problems for trial judges than are other appeals.
The
analysis can be expanded to include other questions of interest. In addition
to the quantitative analyses, a qualitative examination of the circumstances
surrounding the errors can be undertaken. From a qualitative perspective, it
is important to know whether an error occurred because of one of three basic
circumstances: (1) the error arose in a new area of law or litigation, (2)
the error resulted from the misinterpretation or misapplication of
applicable law, or (3) the error was caused by a failure to follow
established or appropriate procedures.
The
results should be reviewed to identify areas of difficulty for trial courts
that need to be improved. For example, if the relative frequency of error is
strongly related to the area of law/offense, the trial court proceeding, or
other measures, the court should focus its corrective measures (e.g.,
educational programs) on such areas. A disproportionate "error
rate" for particular issues would also indicate the need for
educational attention.
This
analysis can be used over time both to identify areas in need of corrective
measures and to indirectly measure the effectiveness of such programs. In
addition, the use of a common data collection system and a common set of
data elements across jurisdictions can highlight the existence of
alternatives. For example, a jurisdiction that has a high incidence of error
on jury instructions can and should learn how and why other jurisdictions
have fewer instruction errors.
Finally,
the collection and analysis of information on the outcomes of appeals should
provide trial courts with a concrete starting point for establishing the
acceptable and unacceptable frequency of reversible error. Because most
estimates of reversal patterns are based on impressions and personal
observations, the data can help courts construct meaningful standards that
combine both the frequency of errors and the circumstances under which the
errors occur.
_________________________________________
35 Another
important question is: Are there differences in the rates of reversals
across individual trial courts within the same State? To address this issue,
there must be a sufficient number of appeals from each court. Because few
courts generate more than 50 appeals each year, the data requirements are
difficult to satisfy. Hence, as a first effort, this measure is most
profitably aimed at statewide patters or patterns with a regional appellate
district.
36 For an investigation of reversible error in
criminal appeals, see J. Chapper and R. Hanson, Three Papers on
Understanding Reversible Error in Criminal Appeals (Williamsburg VA:
National Center for State Courts, 1979). The authors present evidence from a
study of five appellate courts and discuss the implications of the results
for judicial education.
37 Defining trial court error by the decisions
of first-level appeals is not conclusive, of course. Trial court decisions
overturned on first-level review may be reinstated by a higher court. Such
subsequent review is uncommon, however. In 1987, for example, State courts
of last resort granted review in only 14.1 percent of the discretionary
petitions filed. As a result, first-level appeals courts are, in fact if not
in law, the final arbiter for most appeals.
Go
to Form 3.3.5
Go
to Standard 3.3
Go
to Table of Contents |
