Protecting the Record for Appeal: Part I
Take a few moments to remember these things—before you try your case.
January 15, 2019 at 06:35 PM
7 minute read
It's nice to win a big verdict. But it's not nice when it gets reversed on appeal.
So you need to protect that victory—in the trial court, before it even gets to the appellate court.
And when you lose in the trial court, having a solid record will give you the best shot at reversal on appeal and a new chance for the big win.
We're pretty good appellate attorneys, with a nice win record. But we're not good enough to win an appeal with a lousy trial court record. And we're stuck with what the trial lawyer gives us. We're not allowed to add any evidence or documents to it.
It's up to you, the trial attorney, to make sure that your appellate lawyer gets a record that allows him or her to preserve your victory or overturn your loss.
So here are some tips to keep in mind—before, during, and right after trial.
We know you have more important things to think about when preparing for trial, so we'll keep this short and sweet. For more detail on these issues, see Witkin, Rutter Group, or CEB.
But take a few moments to remember these things—before you try your case.
|Order a Court Reporter
Court reporters earn their livings in two ways. First, they receive a daily fee for showing up in court and transcribing what is said. Second, if a party wants a written transcript of what was said, that party pays the court reporter to prepare the transcript.
Years ago, the courts took care of the daily fee. But that ended when the government budget crisis hit. Now, in most courts, no court reporter will show up unless a party has arranged for this—and has agreed to pay the daily fee. Rule of Court 2.956(c).
So call a court reporter directly, and make the arrangement well before any hearing or trial.
If you win the case, the court reporter's fees are recoverable costs. Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(11).
Don't try to save a few bucks by not arranging for a court reporter. If the case is worth trying, it's worth having a court reporter. If you appeal with no reporter's transcript, the appellate court will presume just about everything against you – unless you find some other way provide them with a record of what happened at trial.
There are other ways. It's possible to reconstruct what happened via an “agreed statement,” where you and your opponent agree on what the testimony and other evidence showed. This is a very weak substitute for a reporter's transcript, because your opponent is likely to be uncooperative. Another possibility is a “settled statement,” where the trial judge establishes what happened at trial. As this is the judge you are trying to get reversed, she too might be less than cooperative in giving you a summary of the evidence in a favorable way.
Only a court's reporter's transcript can show the appellate court exactly what happened in the trial court. And you don't need cooperation from your opponent or the court to get it.
Be sure to have a court reporter present for every hearing that might possibly raise an issue for appeal. This includes hearings on in limine motions and procedural issues.
Voir dire? That rarely comes up in appeals, so most attorneys do not have a court reporter present for voir dire. But if the case is big enough, do it. You never know.
Having the court reporter in court does no good if the court reporter is not taking down what is said. So make sure the court reporter transcribes what is said at side-bar conferences, discussions in the judge's chambers, and the like. Some judges might resist, as this takes a bit more time (and some judges don't like being watched by appellate courts). Tell the judge (politely) that you would like the court reporter to be present because important issues might be discussed and ruled upon. If the judge won't do it, after the sidebar or chambers conference ends and you get back to open court, put on the record what happened.
We recently handled an appeal where the judge heard argument on an important jury instruction in chambers. The trial attorney who brought us in for the appeal had asked the judge to bring in the court reporter, to get the discussion on the record. The judge refused. When they all returned to the courtroom, the judge announced his ruling on the motion. The rebuffed attorney then said, “Your honor, I'd like the record to show that in chambers I objected to this jury instruction, and you overruled my objection. And you denied my request to have the court reporter present during that discussion.” A bold move, but it made our job a lot easier. We now had a record showing that he had timely objected, so there was no waiver of our right to raise the issue on appeal. And the record of the judge's obstinacy gave us some ammo to make the judge look bad.
|Objecting to Your Opponent's Evidence
When you object, you must state all grounds for your objection. Evidence Code §353(a). Don't argue, and only a word or two (“hearsay,” or “beyond his expertise”) is needed.
Any ground not stated is waived on appeal. Evidence Code §353(a). Appellate courts strictly enforce this rule, so when in doubt, be sure to mention a ground. Better to be overinclusive than underinclusive.
|Resisting Objections to Your Evidence
If the judge sustains an objection to your evidence, make an offer of proof. Simply tell the judge—on the record, but out of the jury's presence—what the witness or document would have said. Evidence Code §354(a) requires an offer of proof to include the “substance, purpose, and relevance” of the evidence.
Failure to make an offer of proof waives the right to a new trial or appeal based on the erroneous exclusion of your evidence. Evidence Code §354(a).
The law does not require you to include in your offer of proof a showing of the materiality of the evidence, i.e., how important it is to the outcome of the case. But do it anyway, because it will help your appellate lawyer show that the judge's erroneous ruling was prejudicial—which we need to show in order to get a reversal for that error.
William Stein is a former Justice of the California Court of Appeal, First District. He is now of counsel to Moskovitz Appellate Team, group of former appellate judges and appellate research attorneys who handle and consult on appeals and writs. Myron Moskovitz is author of “Moskovitz on Appeal” (LexisNexis) and “Winning an Appeal: (5th ed., Carolina Academic Press). He is legal director of Moskovitz Appellate Team.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute read'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
Trending Stories
- 1Holland & Knight Launches Export Control Disputes and Advocacy Team
- 2Blake Lively's claims that movie co-star launched smear campaign gets support in publicist's suit
- 3Middle District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Attorney Announces Resignation
- 4Vinson & Elkins: Traditional Energy Practice Meets Energy Transition
- 5After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250