The first section of the article outlines the genesis of the doctrine that the Constitution does not require view in criminal cases, beginning with the 1805 Supreme Court decision in United States v. More which held that the Court did not have jurisdiction under the First Judiciary Act to entertain a writ of error in a criminal case. The second section examines the early American criminal trial process, while the third section analyzes the history of criminal litigation in the Federal courts. Four characteristics of early Federal courts -- Supreme Court trial judges, post-conviction motions, certifying questions to the Supreme Court, and habeus corpus -- gave them many of the characteristics of contemporary review. This discussion notes that some experts opposed criminal appeals on the grounds that the government could seek review of acquittals, thereby infringing on individual rights. The final section concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that the Constitutional due process clause was intended to condone leaving the final determination of all constitutional issues to an individual trial judge.