skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 135997 Find in a Library
Title: Were There No Appeal: The History of Review in American Criminal Courts
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  Volume:81  Issue:3  Dated:(Fall 1990)  Pages:518-566
Author(s): D Rossman
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 49
Type: Historical Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article argues that the conventional position concerning the lack of constitutional support for a right to appeal in criminal cases misreads history by ignoring the differences between the 18th century idea of how criminal courts should operate and the current view. The model of the criminal justice system upon which the Constitution is based contained many features that parallel the advantages of the appellate review process.
Abstract: 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.
Main Term(s): Appeal procedures; Criminal justice system analysis
Index Term(s): History of criminal justice; Right to Due Process
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.