#Federal Court Appeals

[medicalweightloss100]

The Role of a Civil Criminal Appeals Attorney in Your Legal Journey

Legal cases can be complicated, and the journey through the judicial system is rarely linear. Whether you are involved in a civil or criminal matter, the ability to appeal a decision can play a crucial role in ensuring that justice is served. Having a qualified Civil Criminal Appeals Attorney by your side is invaluable in such situations. These legal professionals specialize in navigating the appellate process, helping clients pursue justice after a trial verdict, whether overturning a conviction or challenging an unfavorable ruling. In this article, we will explore the vital role of Appeal Lawyers in your legal journey, focusing on criminal and civil cases and the importance of selecting the right appellate law firm for your case.

Understanding the Appellate Process:

The appellate process is distinct from trial court proceedings. While trials focus on presenting evidence and determining facts, appeals are concerned with legal issues, such as whether the law was applied correctly or if procedural errors affected the outcome of the case. This is where Civil Appeals Attorneys and Criminal Appeal Lawyers come in. They specialize in reviewing the legal aspects of a case, preparing persuasive arguments for why the decision should be reconsidered, and representing clients before higher courts.

Appeals are not automatic; a party must have legitimate grounds to challenge the ruling, such as errors in legal procedures, misapplication of law, or new evidence that could alter the case outcome. In both civil and criminal cases, the appellate process involves filing a notice of appeal, preparing legal briefs, and sometimes, presenting oral arguments before appellate judges. This process is complex and requires specialized knowledge of appellate litigation.

The Role of Civil Criminal Appeals Attorneys:

1. Analyzing the Case and Identifying Appealable Issues:

The first step in the appellate process is to evaluate whether an appeal is feasible. Civil Appeals Attorneys or Criminal Appeal Lawyers carefully analyze the trial court record to identify potential errors or issues that could form the basis for an appeal. For criminal cases, common grounds for appeal might include ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, or constitutional violations during the trial. For civil cases, errors in judgment or misinterpretation of the law may be identified as appealable issues.

This phase requires a comprehensive understanding of appellate law and a detailed review of the trial's proceedings, evidence, and legal rulings. Attorneys will meticulously assess the record to determine the viability of the appeal and the likelihood of success before the appellate court.

2. Preparing and Filing the Appeal:

Once the issues for appeal have been identified, the next step is drafting a legal brief. This brief outlines the arguments for why the trial court's decision should be reversed or modified. The Federal Appellate or Civil Criminal Appeals Attorney must frame these arguments persuasively, using case law, statutes, and legal precedents to support their position.

The brief is filed with the appellate court, and the opposing side can respond. The appellate process often involves multiple rounds of briefs and responses, requiring meticulous attention to detail and a deep understanding of legal principles. In some cases, a Post-Conviction appeal may be necessary, particularly in criminal cases, where a defendant seeks to overturn a conviction after all avenues of direct appeal have been exhausted.

3. Representing Clients in Oral Arguments:

If the appellate court grants the opportunity for oral arguments, the Appeal Lawyers will present their case in person before the judges. This stage is crucial because it allows the attorney to directly address the court, clarify legal points, and respond to any questions raised by the judges. Oral arguments are essential to the appeal process, as they allow the attorney to strengthen their case and persuade the judges of their argument's merit.

The skills required for successful oral argumentation are specific and developed over time. Critical is the ability to think on your feet, present a clear and concise argument, and respond to challenges from the bench. Supreme Court Attorneys, for example, are renowned for their expertise in handling these high-stakes arguments.

The Importance of Specialized Appellate Law Firms:

The complexity of appellate law underscores the importance of selecting the right appellate law firm to handle your case. Unlike trial attorneys, who focus on presenting evidence and arguing facts before a jury, Federal Court Appeals Lawyers and appellate attorneys specialize in legal analysis, presenting legal arguments, and dealing with higher courts. An experienced appellate lawyer can significantly increase your chances of success in challenging a trial decision.

The Role of Federal Court Appeals Lawyers:

Federal Court Appeals Lawyers play a pivotal role in cases involving federal law. These lawyers are well-versed in handling appeals at the federal level, where the stakes are often higher and the legal issues more complex. Whether a Federal Appellate Attorney challenges a criminal conviction or advocates for a civil case involving federal statutes, these lawyers are adept at working within the framework of federal law.

Federal appellate cases often involve intricate procedural rules and detailed legal standards. A Federal Appellate Attorney is crucial in helping clients navigate these complexities, particularly in cases involving constitutional rights, federal regulations, or inter-state legal issues.

Criminal Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief:

In criminal cases, the role of Criminal Appeal Lawyers extends beyond the direct appeal of a conviction. Post-conviction relief is a critical area of practice for these attorneys. Post-conviction appeals are filed after a sentence has been upheld in a direct appeal. Grounds for post-conviction relief might include new evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or violations of constitutional rights that were not previously addressed.

A Criminal Appeal Lawyer can assist with filing a motion for post-conviction relief, which may lead to overturning a conviction, a reduced sentence, or a new trial. This stage is crucial, especially in cases where a defendant may have been wrongfully convicted or sentenced too harshly.

The Appeal Process in Civil Cases:

The stakes are different for civil appeals attorneys, but the process is similarly rigorous. In civil cases, appeals are often based on questions of law, such as whether the judge applied the law correctly or whether procedural errors affected the fairness of the trial. Common civil appeals include challenges to verdicts in personal injury cases, contract disputes, or administrative decisions.

Civil appeals often involve a deeper focus on legal precedents and statutory interpretation. Civil Appeals Attorneys are skilled at presenting arguments that address these issues, drawing from extensive legal research and case law to argue for reversing or modifying a trial court decision.

Conclusion:

Whether your case is civil or criminal, having an experienced Civil Criminal Appeals Attorney can make a profound difference in the outcome of your legal journey. These attorneys possess the specialized knowledge and skills to navigate the intricate process of appealing a court decision. Appeal Lawyers provide crucial representation, from Post-Conviction relief in criminal cases to challenging errors in civil proceedings.

By engaging with an experienced appellate law firm, you can ensure that your case is handled with the care and attention it deserves, increasing your chances of achieving a favorable outcome. If your case involves federal issues, Federal Court Appeals Lawyers and Federal Appellate Attorneys will bring their expertise to bear on the unique challenges posed by federal appellate litigation.

Ultimately, whether you're facing a Criminal Appeal Lawyer, Civil Appeals Attorney, or Supreme Court Attorney, selecting a legal team with the right expertise and experience can significantly impact the course of your legal battle.

[queersatanic]

The Satanic Temple is very bad at court cases (December 2023)

Changes from November include:

Confirmation both Travis County, Texas, lawsuits have not seen any new filings in more than one year.

Ninth Circuit granted TST partial victory in form of an additional opportunity to make defamation claims in federal district court against Johnson et al Defendants.

Full list on The.Satanic.Wiki

Full list on r/TheSatanicCirclejerk

Moreover, we’re still being sued by The Satanic Temple in federal appellate court and now King County Superior Court.

TST is also still suing Newsweek and its reporter (but maybe not her anymore!) for writing about us. In addition, The Satanic Temple is now suing a TikToker in Texas for talking about our case. Check the pinned post for more.

While it looks bad on its own, compare how things looked just one short year ago for The Satanic Temple and notice how so many of those "ongoing" cases turned out.

When it comes to The Satanic Temple, there's always more and it's always worse.

[news4dzhozhar]

Boston Marathon bombing victims rip Tsarnaev’s latest legal appeal

**So due process and the right to appeal is a "cash cow" now? This whole attitude is why some of the appeals are being filed in the first place. There SHOULD have been a change of venue, Judge O’Toole SHOULD 100% be removed, 2 of the jurors lied in their pretrial screenings so the penalty phase SHOULD be retried. **

BOSTON — Boston Marathon bombing victims say Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attempt to get his old legal team back together is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Tsarnaev, locked up in a Colorado Supermax, has an Aug. 21 court date in Boston where his lawyers will begin to try to keep him out of the electric chair.

That status conference is before federal Judge George A. O’Toole Jr.

“Who’s paying for this?” said Liz Norden. “He blew up innocent people and we’re told it’s no one’s business to know how much his lawyers cost? It makes no sense.”

The Department of Justice has denied a Herald public records request for Tsarnaev’s legal bill while his case drags on in the courts.

Norden has attempted to make every hearing in a solemn show of support for the victims of the bombing, including her two boys who lost their right legs that terrible day on Boylston Street on April 15, 2013.

Marc Fucarile, woke up in a hospital with his right leg mostly gone and his left one possibly next, said Monday the seemingly never-ending case against the bomber is an insult to the city.

“Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars just for greedy lawyers,” he said of Tsarnaev’s appeal of his death penalty sentence. “He was already judged by his peers. There should be no question he deserves the death penalty.

“Let’s just cut off this cash cow,” he added.

The bomber has questioned the bias of two jurors in his 2015 death penalty trial and won a partial victory in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The appeals court stated “the district court’s investigation fell short of what was constitutionally required” over this one issue. If bias is shown, the court adds, Tsarnaev will be “entitled to a new penalty-phase proceeding.”

The alleged bias is over social media postings about the bombing made by two jurors.

The appeals court has added “regardless of the outcome, (Tsarnaev) will spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Now the bomber is moving quickly to assemble his legal team, with Boston attorney William Fick filing an appeal to return to the case now that he is in private practice.

Tsarnaev is “legally indigent,” Fick writes, and the courts should allow him back on the case “in order to serve the interests of justice, judicial economy, continuity in representation.”

His motion also states attorneys Daniel Habib, Deirdre von Dornum, and Mia Eisner-Grynberg from the Federal Defenders of New York, are on his side of the bench. It’s not clear if all the lawyers are working pro bono or submitting a bill.

The New York group does offer free help to “persons charged with federal crimes who cannot afford to hire an attorney.”

The case remains in the Seaport federal court before the same judge as the alleged bias of two jurors is re-examined, the court announced Monday. Still, Tsarnaev does have a chance to avoid death.

The bombing killed Martin Richard, 8; Krystle Campbell, 29; and Lu Lingzi, 23. More than 260 people were injured and maimed. MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 27, was shot execution-style days later by Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan, killed hours later in a firefight in Watertown.

Boston Police Officer Dennis Simmonds, 28, injured in the Watertown shootout, died in April 2014.

Tsarnaev is locked up in the Federal Correctional Complex Florence in Colorado — a Supermax called the “Alcatraz of the Rockies.”

[tomorrowusa]

Special Counsel Jack Smith has had it with Trump-appointed Federal Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon has been indulging every questionable whim used by Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case in order to stall it. Her decisions have been blatantly partisan; perhaps Trump promised her a seat on the US Supreme Court – not that he's famous for following through on loyalty.

Jack Smith filed a motion asking Cannon to get moving with the case – with the implied threat that he will appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to have her overruled or even removed from the case. The 11th Circuit had already, in a unanimous decision, vacated a previous order of hers which would have delayed the proceedings.

Time To Fire The Cannon?

Putting Trump back in office would allow him to appoint more dubious judges like Aileen Cannon. Defeating Trump would not just protect democracy but would prevent the federal judiciary from becoming a corrupt Trump tool.

[gwydionmisha]

It's to keep Trump from appointing extra partisan incompetents.

US appeals court blocks Biden administration effort to restore net-neutrality rules

[dr-archeville]

Federal Courts: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [source]

"John Oliver discusses how Donald Trump has impacted our federal courts, what he could do if reelected, and how Judge Steve Harvey fits into our judiciary branch." [27 min 10 sec]

[newsreleted]

TikTok set to be banned in the US after losing appeal

See More.....

[rabbitcruiser]

The Postal Service Act, establishing the United States Post Office Department, is signed by United States President George Washington on February 20, 1792.

[secondjulia]

"I’m very concerned about my client’s right to a fair trial in this case.  He’s being prejudiced by some statements that are being made by government officials. Like every other defendant, he’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. But unfortunately the way this has been handled so far his rights are being violated. And as you know, Your Honor, there’s a wealth of case law guaranteeing his rights to a fair trial, but none of the safeguards have been put in place yet here — in fact it’s just the opposite of what’s been happening. 

He’s a young man, and he is being treated like a human pingpong ball between two warring jurisdictions here.

These federal and state prosecutors are coordinating with one another at the expense of him. They have conflicting theories in their indictment, and they are literally treating him like he is some sort of political fodder, like some sort of spectacle. 

He was on display for everyone to see in the biggest staged perp walk I’ve ever seen in my career. It was absolutely unnecessary. He’s been cooperative with law enforcement. He’d been in custody for over a week. He waived extradition. He was cooperative at all accounts. There was no reason for the NYPD and everybody to have these big assault rifles — that frankly I had no idea it was in their arsenal — and to have all the press there the media there. It was perfectly choreographed. 

And what was the New York City Mayor doing at this press conference, Your Honor? That just made it utterly political. And as your honor knows under Loro v. Charles, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held it to be clearly established that these staged perp walks to the media unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective is unconstitutional. And I submit that there was zero law enforcement objective to do that sort of perp walk. There’s absolutely no need for that whatsoever. 

And frankly, Your Honor, the mayor should know more than anyone about the presumption of innocence that he, too, is afforded dealing with his own issues. And, frankly, I submit that he was just trying to detract from those issues by making a spectacle of Mr. Mangione. 

And there are consequences to this. 

He has a right to a fair trial. And I just want to put on the record statements that the mayor made publicly about my client. Nothing saying “alleged” for example. And he said “I wanted to send a strong message with the police commissioner that we’re leading from the front. I’m not just going to allow him to come into our city. I wanted to look him in the eye and state ‘You carried out this terrorist act in my city, the city of New York that I love.’” And he wanted to show symbolism. 

Your Honor, he’s not a symbol. He’s somebody who is afforded the right to a fair trial. He’s innocent until proven guilty. And the mayor was talking to jurors — future potential jurors that elected him. Those are the people that elected him that he is talking to and calling this man a terrorist.

So, Your Honor, I just want to make a record of this and put everyone on notice that this has to stop, and my client is entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence."

From the CNN stream (weird video)

[gurutrends]

US: Federal appeals court overturns ban on handgun sales to teens

US: Federal appeals court overturns ban on handgun sales to teens A federal appeals court in the United States has overturned a decades-old law that barred Americans aged 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns, ruling that the restriction violates the Second Amendment. The conservative Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined on Thursday that the federal law, which had been in place since 1968,…

[nationallawreview]

Federal District Court Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Barring Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act

In Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., a federal district court judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), finding that the CTA likely exceeds Congress’s powers. Therefore, at present, a reporting company is not obligated to comply with the CTA and the government is enjoined from enforcing the CTA’s reporting…

[miraclesinthestars]

[news4dzhozhar]

Hello,the recent info about Tsarnaev,do you know if he's gonna be present in the court? Or just his lawyers

Usually it's just his lawyers unless he needs to speak (entering a plea, receiving a verdict). The Court would be the Federal one in Boston and since Dzho is housed at the ADX in Colorado, it would be a security and logistics nightmare to fly him out for court appearances that are 20-30 minutes. If he were to be granted a new penalty phase then he'd be brought into court but not for the various appeals.

[tomorrowusa]

When you vote for president, you are voting for the person who appoints federal judges – including those on the US Supreme Court. When you vote for US senator, you are voting for one of the people who confirms those judges.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. So bad choices for president or senator live on long past the four-year or six-year terms of the elected officials who put those judges on the bench.

If you want to know what a fully Trumpified federal judiciary would be like, check out the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. It covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit makes the current US Supreme Court look liberal and capable.

The latest atrocity from the Fifth Circuit involves a decision where a state law forbidding abortion takes precedence over the survival of woman seeking emergency treatment.

The case is Texas v. Becerra, and all three of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judges who joined this opinion were appointed by Republicans. Two, including Kurt Engelhardt, the opinion’s author, were appointed by former President Donald Trump. The case involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal statute requiring hospitals that accept Medicare funds to provide “such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition” of “any individual” who arrives at the hospital’s ER with an “emergency medical condition.” (In limited circumstances, the hospital may transfer the patient to a different facility that will provide this stabilizing treatment.) EMTALA contains no carve-out for abortion. It simply states that, whenever any patient arrives at a Medicare-funded hospital with a medical emergency, the hospital must offer that patient whatever treatment is necessary to “stabilize the medical condition” that caused the emergency. So, if a patient’s emergency condition can only be stabilized by an abortion, federal law requires nearly all hospitals to provide that treatment. (Hospitals can opt out of EMTALA by not taking Medicare funds but, because Medicare funds health care for elderly Americans, very few hospitals do opt out.) This federal law, moreover, also states that it overrides (or “preempts,” to use the appropriate legal term) state and local laws “to the extent that the [state law] directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.” So, in states with sweeping abortion bans that prohibit some or all medically necessary abortions, the state law must give way to EMTALA’s requirement that all patients must be offered whatever treatment is necessary to stabilize their condition. It is important to emphasize just how little EMTALA has to say about abortion. EMTALA does not protect healthy women who wish to terminate their pregnancies. Nor does it preempt any state regulations of abortion, except when a patient is experiencing a medical emergency and their doctors determine that an abortion is the appropriate treatment. But when an emergency room patient presents with a life-threatening illness or condition — or, in the words of the EMTALA statute, that patient has a condition that places their health “in serious jeopardy,” that threatens “serious impairment to bodily functions,” or “serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part” — then Medicare-funded hospitals must provide whatever treatment is necessary. The Texas case, in other words, asks whether a state government can force a woman to die, or suffer lasting injury to her uterus or other reproductive organs, because the state’s lawmakers are so opposed to abortion that they will not permit it, even when such an abortion is required by federal law. And yet, despite the fact that the EMTALA statute is unambiguous, and despite the fact that this case only involves patients whose life or health is threatened by a pregnancy, three Fifth Circuit judges told those patients that they have no right to potentially lifesaving medical care.

Of course the ruling by the Fifth Circuit lacks basic logic. If the mother dies, the fetus is likely lost as well anyway. d'oh!

All three judges on the panel are Republicans – two having been appointed by Trump. Don't expect judicial genius from these folks.

Engelhardt’s opinion is surprisingly brief for such a consequential decision, and for one that reads a straightforward federal law in such a counterintuitive way. The section of the opinion laying out Engelhardt’s unusual reading of this federal law is only about eight pages long — yet it contains at least three separate legal errors.

This case will probably end up before SCOTUS. The best we should expect is for the Supremos to toss out the decision because of the legal errors made by the Fifth Circuit.

But in the long run, to protect reproductive freedom it's necessary to keep Republicans out of the White House and out of the majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future.

Be A Voter - Vote Save America