27. Standards of Review

Question 1

What is required for reviewing findings of fact to set them aside?

Answer 1

Clearly erroneous standard

1) Bench trial (NO jury)

2) Judge must have opportunity to assess witness’ credibility
- If W’s credibility is good (gave correct facts) => Judge made clearly erroneous mistake of fact
- If W’s credibility is bad (gave NO correct facts) => Judge NOT made clearly erroneous mistake of fact

3) Reasonable jury would not make same conclusion after review

Question 2

What is required for reviewing matters of law/mixed questions of law and fact?

Answer 2

1) De Novo standard
- Without deference to Trial Court’s analysis
- Appellate Court to review from scratch

2) Trial judge erred on pure matter of law

Question 3

What is required for reviewing abuse of discretionary matters?

Answer 3

Abuse of discretion standard

• With deference to Trial Court’s analysis (whether irrational or not)
• E.g. Admissibility of evidence (Rule 403 balancing test)

Question 4

How may decisions not be overturned even if appeal is successful?

Answer 4

Harmless error doctrine

- Appellate court finds error would unlikely change trial outcome anyway