Knowing it would be appealed, no matter the ruling, the lower court found it was an insurrection. The next court had to take that as a factual finding. They could not argue or retry that question. It is now a legal fact.
Brilliant move! That judge took one for the team, called a coward and a traitor. And you see what we have here today. (insert wasted.meme)
Lower court: “We find that since the man was found dead from dehydration, he must have been killed by the accused’s witchcraft that sucked his fluids!”
Higher court: Looking at a body covered in bruises from a long fall “I’m sorry, what…?”
Knowing it would be appealed, no matter the ruling, the lower court found it was an insurrection. The next court had to take that as a factual finding. They could not argue or retry that question. It is now a legal fact.
Brilliant move! That judge took one for the team, called a coward and a traitor. And you see what we have here today. (insert wasted.meme)
That’s not how American courts work? The upper court can find issue with practically anything it likes.
Nope. The court of appeals can find fault with the methods, procedure, precedent etc but not the facts.
(Also, that’s not how question marks work.)
But here’s the thing: they could easily say the method that led to the finding is wrong. It’s not a fact.
If it’s decided by the lower court it is held as fact. It may not in your opinion be correct but it is verifiably a fact at this point.
Lower court: “We find that since the man was found dead from dehydration, he must have been killed by the accused’s witchcraft that sucked his fluids!”
Higher court: Looking at a body covered in bruises from a long fall “I’m sorry, what…?”
Not fact finding they can kick it back to lower courts and say try it again but if the lower court says no they’re stuck with it.