Almost always, the cases
heard in the Supreme Court have first been decided in the
Superior
Court, which is a trial court where a judge or a jury makes a decision
based on conflicting stories from witnesses who describe the history of
the controversy.
The losing party in the Superior Court has the right to one appeal to
another court. Most of these appeals go first to the
Appellate Court,
Connecticut's intermediate court of appeals.
Appeals come to the Supreme Court in one of two ways. A
person who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Appellate Court can
ask the Supreme Court to take another look at the legal issues that are
at stake, by filing a request that the appeal be certified. Other
appeals come to the Supreme Court as a result of a decision to transfer
the case to itself instead of having it be heard in the Appellate Court,
or as a result of a law mandating that an appeal must be heard by the
Supreme Court. For example, appeals involving reapportionment of voting
districts and death penalty cases are always heard in the Supreme Court.
After an appeal has been taken, each party files a brief and the court
then schedules the case for oral argument at the next available session
of the court.
If you listen to an oral argument at an appellate-level
court such as the Supreme Court, you will notice that it differs from an
oral argument in the trial court. In the trial court, the lawyer is
addressing a jury of lay persons or a judge, urging the jury or judge to
make certain findings of fact. In the Supreme Court, the lawyer is
addressing a panel of justices, urging them to reach certain conclusions
of law. Before the oral argument, each justice has already carefully
studied the written briefs that present each party's legal arguments, as
well as the factual and procedural history of the case. The justices
therefore ask many questions in order to understand fully the positions
being advanced by each party. Although the justices sometimes ask about
the facts, the dialogue between the lawyers and the court centers on
issues of law. The justices expect the lawyers to know how the present
case fits in with other cases that the court has decided in the past and
with statutes that the legislature has adopted. The justices may also
inquire into the possible effect that a ruling in this case may have on
related factual situations that may arise in the future. Experienced
lawyers welcome this dialogue as the best way to win a close case. They
know that oral argument may change the justices' views of who should
prevail on appeal or of why a particular party should prevail.
|
