the u.s. case precedent system: applications in the appellate courts tom c. rawlings judge, juvenile...

The U.S. Case Precedent The U.S. Case Precedent System:System:

Applications in the Appellate Applications in the Appellate CourtsCourts

Tom C. RawlingsTom C. RawlingsJudge, Juvenile CourtsJudge, Juvenile CourtsMiddle Judicial CircuitMiddle Judicial Circuit

Sandersville, GASandersville, GA(478) 553-0012(478) 553-0012

[email protected]@sandersville.netwww.tomrawlings.comwww.tomrawlings.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tomrawlings.com/

The AppealThe Appeal

• As a general rule, an appeal from As a general rule, an appeal from trial court to appellate court is an trial court to appellate court is an appeal of appeal of legal issueslegal issues, not , not factual factual issuesissues..

• Factual issues are decided at the Factual issues are decided at the trial level, by the jury or judge trial level, by the jury or judge sitting as finder of fact.sitting as finder of fact.

• Obtained by simply filing a notice Obtained by simply filing a notice of appeal, usually within 30 days of of appeal, usually within 30 days of the trial court’s judgment.the trial court’s judgment.

Right to An AppealRight to An Appeal

• In general, a criminal defendant In general, a criminal defendant has an automatic right to appeal at has an automatic right to appeal at least to the next-highest court.least to the next-highest court.

• The Supreme Court of the United The Supreme Court of the United States, and usually the Supreme States, and usually the Supreme Court of each state, grant appeals Court of each state, grant appeals only on only on writ of certiorariwrit of certiorari, which , which requires a finding that the case is requires a finding that the case is of extreme importance and should of extreme importance and should be decided by the high court.be decided by the high court.

Role of the Appellate CourtsRole of the Appellate Courts

• Creating Uniformity in the Law through Creating Uniformity in the Law through Binding Precedent.Binding Precedent.– Example: Georgia Supreme CourtExample: Georgia Supreme Court

•Until Court was created in 1832, different circuits Until Court was created in 1832, different circuits followed different precedents and rules.followed different precedents and rules.

•Outcome depended on which circuit you were in.Outcome depended on which circuit you were in.

• Determining What the Law Should Be.Determining What the Law Should Be.– Marbury v. Madison, US Supreme Court 1803Marbury v. Madison, US Supreme Court 1803

What Exactly Is the Case What Exactly Is the Case Precedent System?Precedent System?

• Reliance on settled law, as found in case Reliance on settled law, as found in case decisions of decisions of higher courtshigher courts, to decide , to decide new cases. new cases.

• Persuasive power of case decisions of Persuasive power of case decisions of sister courtssister courts when issues of first when issues of first impression arise.impression arise.

• Adding “clothes” to a “naked” statute.Adding “clothes” to a “naked” statute.• Analogizing the facts of the present case Analogizing the facts of the present case

to previously-decided cases.to previously-decided cases.• Effectiveness is dependent on a highly-Effectiveness is dependent on a highly-

indexed system of published case indexed system of published case decisions.decisions.

Stare Decisis: The Rule of Stare Decisis: The Rule of PrecedentPrecedent

• Promotes the evenhanded, predictable, Promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal and consistent development of legal principlesprinciples

• Fosters reliance on judicial decisionsFosters reliance on judicial decisions• Contributes to the actual and perceived Contributes to the actual and perceived

integrity of the judicial process. integrity of the judicial process. • Adhering to precedent "is usually the Adhering to precedent "is usually the

wise policy, because in most matters it wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled rule of law be settled than it be settled right right

– PAYNE V. TENNESSEEPAYNE V. TENNESSEE, 501 US 808 (1991), 501 US 808 (1991)

State Court of Appeals

JuvenileCourt

Superior Court

ProbateCourt

MisdemeanorCourt

AdministrativeLaw Judge

MagistrateCourt

State Supreme

Court

United States Court Of Appeals

State SupremeCourt

United StatesDistrict Court

United States Supreme Court

Hypothetical CaseHypothetical Case

• John Smith was convicted of felony John Smith was convicted of felony damage to property based on:damage to property based on:

1.1. His confession;His confession;

2.2. What his wife told police in a What his wife told police in a statement;statement;

3.3. The testimony of his accomplice;The testimony of his accomplice;

4.4. His wife’s angry statement to a police His wife’s angry statement to a police department receptionist; anddepartment receptionist; and

5.5. Testimony as to the value of property Testimony as to the value of property he damaged.he damaged.

The AppealThe Appeal

• Necessities:Necessities:– Transcript: Usually a verbatim record Transcript: Usually a verbatim record

of the proceedings below, together with of the proceedings below, together with copies of all documents and evidence copies of all documents and evidence filed.filed.

– Enumerations of Error: Short and Enumerations of Error: Short and plain, numbered statements of how the plain, numbered statements of how the trial court erred in reaching its trial court erred in reaching its judgment.judgment.

– Brief: A written legal argument, citing Brief: A written legal argument, citing case and statutory authority, case and statutory authority, addressing each of the enumerations of addressing each of the enumerations of error.error.

Deciding Whether To Deciding Whether To AppealAppeal

• Is there reversible error? Is there reversible error? • Consider the Standard of ReviewConsider the Standard of Review• Consider Deference and Discretion Consider Deference and Discretion

Given Trial CourtGiven Trial Court• Consider the “3 W’s” of Appellate Consider the “3 W’s” of Appellate

Practice:Practice:– Waiver, Whatever, and Who Cares?Waiver, Whatever, and Who Cares?

Enumerations of ErrorEnumerations of Error

1.1. The evidence was insufficient to The evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.sustain the verdict.

2.2. The Court improperly allowed the The Court improperly allowed the prosecution to reject potential prosecution to reject potential jurors based on race contrary to jurors based on race contrary to Batson v. KentuckyBatson v. Kentucky

3.3. The trial court improperly allowed The trial court improperly allowed officer Colbert to tell the jury what officer Colbert to tell the jury what the defendant’s wife told him.the defendant’s wife told him.

Enumerations of ErrorEnumerations of Error4.4. The trial court improperly allowed The trial court improperly allowed

the police receptionist to relate the police receptionist to relate Mrs. Smith’s comments at the Mrs. Smith’s comments at the police station.police station.

5.5. The trial court improperly admitted The trial court improperly admitted the defendant’s alleged confession.the defendant’s alleged confession.

6.6. The trial court improperly admitted The trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence of the value of the hearsay evidence of the value of the grave markers.grave markers.

7.7. The defendant’s trial counsel was The defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective.ineffective.

1.1. The evidence was The evidence was insufficient to sustain the insufficient to sustain the

verdict.verdict.

• ““On appeal from a criminal conviction, On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and light most favorable to the verdict, and defendant no longer enjoys the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of review.”under the standard of review.”

1. The evidence was 1. The evidence was insufficient to sustain the insufficient to sustain the

verdict.verdict.

• Q: Was the evidence “sufficient to Q: Was the evidence “sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to enable a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted?which he was convicted?

– Jackson v. VirginiaJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 443 U.S. 307 (1979).(1979).

– Why “beyond a reasonable doubt?”Why “beyond a reasonable doubt?”• In re WinshipIn re Winship

Appellate Courts Correct Appellate Courts Correct Errors of Law, Not of FactErrors of Law, Not of Fact

• ““This is a court for the correction This is a court for the correction of errors of law committed by the of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper exception trial court where proper exception is taken, because one may not is taken, because one may not abandon an issue in the trial court abandon an issue in the trial court and on appeal raise questions or and on appeal raise questions or issues neither raised nor ruled on issues neither raised nor ruled on by the trial court.”by the trial court.”– Colley v. StateColley v. State, 225 Ga. App. 198 , 225 Ga. App. 198

(1997)(1997)

2.2. The Court improperly allowed The Court improperly allowed the prosecution to reject the prosecution to reject

potential jurors based on race potential jurors based on race contrary to contrary to Batson v. KentuckyBatson v. Kentucky

• Was this issue raised?Was this issue raised?• No transcript, no objection, no No transcript, no objection, no

review.review.

You Snooze, You LoseYou Snooze, You Lose• ““Patterson contends that the statements Patterson contends that the statements

made by William Windsor to the two made by William Windsor to the two investigating officers were inadmissible investigating officers were inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington, . . . and under Crawford v. Washington, . . . and that the trial court erred in permitting that the trial court erred in permitting the two officers to testify to those the two officers to testify to those statements. However, because Patterson statements. However, because Patterson did not object to the statements on Sixth did not object to the statements on Sixth Amendment grounds at trial, he is Amendment grounds at trial, he is procedurally barred from raising this procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal.”issue on appeal.”

– Patterson v. State, Georgia Supreme Ct. 2006Patterson v. State, Georgia Supreme Ct. 2006

2.2. The Court improperly allowed The Court improperly allowed the prosecution to reject the prosecution to reject

potential jurors based on race potential jurors based on race contrary to contrary to Batson v. KentuckyBatson v. Kentucky

• Exception: “Harmful as a matter of law”Exception: “Harmful as a matter of law”– ““To satisfy this standard, appellant must To satisfy this standard, appellant must

show that the allegedly erroneous charge was show that the allegedly erroneous charge was blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the extent that it raises a question whether he extent that it raises a question whether he has been deprived, to some extent, of a fair has been deprived, to some extent, of a fair trial. trial.

– Brown v. State, 268 Ga. App. 629, 632 (Ga. Ct. App. Brown v. State, 268 Ga. App. 629, 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)2004)

5. The trial court improperly 5. The trial court improperly admitted the defendant’s admitted the defendant’s

alleged confessionalleged confession

• An appellate court will uphold a An appellate court will uphold a trial court's findings as to disputed trial court's findings as to disputed facts in a motion to suppress facts in a motion to suppress unless clearly erroneous, whereas unless clearly erroneous, whereas the trial court's application of the the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. to de novo appellate review.

3.3. The trial court improperly The trial court improperly allowed officer Colbert to tell allowed officer Colbert to tell the jury what the defendant’s the jury what the defendant’s

wife told him.wife told him.

Ohio v. Roberts (U.S. Ohio v. Roberts (U.S. Supreme Court, 1980)Supreme Court, 1980)

• Facts:Facts:– Roberts charged with forgery of Issacs’ Roberts charged with forgery of Issacs’

checks.checks.– At a preliminary hearing, Issacs’ At a preliminary hearing, Issacs’

daughter Anita testified she did not daughter Anita testified she did not give Roberts permission to use checks.give Roberts permission to use checks.

– At trial, Roberts testified Anita gave At trial, Roberts testified Anita gave him permission.him permission.

– Anita could not be found, was Anita could not be found, was “unavailable.” Ohio statute allowed “unavailable.” Ohio statute allowed prosecution to use her testimony from prosecution to use her testimony from the prior hearing.the prior hearing.


• Issue: Conflict between evidentiary rules Issue: Conflict between evidentiary rules regarding use of hearsay and the regarding use of hearsay and the Confrontation Clause.Confrontation Clause.

– Hearsay: testimony in court, or written Hearsay: testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.credibility of the out-of-court asserter.

– Confrontation Clause: U.S. Constitution, Confrontation Clause: U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI. “In all criminal prosecutions, Amendment VI. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted “with the witnesses against him." confronted “with the witnesses against him."


• Approach: One of determining Approach: One of determining “purpose” of Confrontation Clause:“purpose” of Confrontation Clause:

– Literally applied, would prevent evidence Literally applied, would prevent evidence from from anyany declarant not at trial. declarant not at trial.

– Obviously intended to prevent use of Obviously intended to prevent use of somesome hearsay. Why?hearsay. Why?

– ““Reflects a preference for face-to-face Reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial,” the “primary interest confrontation at trial,” the “primary interest served by the right of cross-examination.”served by the right of cross-examination.”

– In other words, ensures In other words, ensures reliabilityreliability of of evidence.evidence.

– But: there are times when you must use But: there are times when you must use testimony from declarants who are not testimony from declarants who are not available at trial.available at trial.


• THEREFORE, because the purpose THEREFORE, because the purpose of the clause is to ensure of the clause is to ensure reliabilityreliability, ,

– we can admit hearsay evidence if the we can admit hearsay evidence if the declarant is unavailable (out of declarant is unavailable (out of necessity), and necessity), and

– The evidence falls within a “firmly The evidence falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or otherwise rooted hearsay exception” or otherwise bears “sufficient indicia of reliability” bears “sufficient indicia of reliability” or “particularized guarantees of or “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.”trustworthiness.”

Results of RobertsResults of Roberts

• Applies Confrontation Clause to Applies Confrontation Clause to ALL hearsay, not just statements ALL hearsay, not just statements taken by police or statements taken by police or statements intended to be used against the intended to be used against the defendant at trial.defendant at trial.

• Subjective standard. What does Subjective standard. What does “reliable” mean?“reliable” mean?

• Would admit the confession of a Would admit the confession of a co-conspirator who does not appear co-conspirator who does not appear in court.in court.

Source: Counseller & Rickett, “The Confrontation Clause After Crawford v. Washington: Smaller Mouth, Bigger Teeth”, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 1 (2005)

Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004)(U.S. Supreme Court, 2004)

• Facts:Facts:– Crawford stabbed a man. Police tape-Crawford stabbed a man. Police tape-

recorded an interview with his wife. recorded an interview with his wife. Crawford claimed self-defense.Crawford claimed self-defense.

– Wife refused to testify at trial, exercising Wife refused to testify at trial, exercising her marital privilege.her marital privilege.

– To counter self-defense claim, To counter self-defense claim, prosecution offered wife’s tape-recorded prosecution offered wife’s tape-recorded statement.statement.

– Trial court admitted it, finding (1) Trial court admitted it, finding (1) witness unavailable and (2) sufficient witness unavailable and (2) sufficient reliability.reliability.


• ISSUE:ISSUE:– Whether playing this tape for the jury Whether playing this tape for the jury

violated Crawford’s Sixth-Amendment violated Crawford’s Sixth-Amendment right to be confronted with the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.witnesses against him.


• APPROACH:APPROACH:– Focus on Focus on historyhistory behind the protection. behind the protection.– Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh – typical civil-law Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh – typical civil-law

trial in which prosecution offered the written trial in which prosecution offered the written statement of Cobham, an alleged co-statement of Cobham, an alleged co-conspirator implicating Raleigh.conspirator implicating Raleigh.• ““The Proof of the Common Law is by witness and The Proof of the Common Law is by witness and

jury: let Cobham be here, let him speak it. Call my jury: let Cobham be here, let him speak it. Call my accuser before my face .”accuser before my face .”

– ““The principal evil at which the The principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused.”as evidence against the accused.”


• THEREFORE:THEREFORE:– ““Where testimonial statements are at Where testimonial statements are at

issue, the only indicium of reliability issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.”actually prescribes: confrontation.”

– In other words, if the out-of-court In other words, if the out-of-court statement is in the nature of statement is in the nature of testimonytestimony, it cannot be admitted , it cannot be admitted unless (1) witness unavailable AND (2) unless (1) witness unavailable AND (2) the defendant has already had a full the defendant has already had a full and fair cross-examination.and fair cross-examination.


• THEREFORE:THEREFORE:– The Clause's ultimate goal is to ensure The Clause's ultimate goal is to ensure

reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. . . . The Roberts test allows a examination. . . . The Roberts test allows a jury to hear evidence, untested by the jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability. It thus replaces determination of reliability. It thus replaces the constitutionally prescribed method of the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one. one.

4.4. The trial court improperly The trial court improperly allowed the police receptionist to allowed the police receptionist to relate Mrs. Smith’s comments at relate Mrs. Smith’s comments at

the police stationthe police station

• Trial court has wide discretion in Trial court has wide discretion in admitting evidence.admitting evidence.

• ““Whether the evidence's prejudice Whether the evidence's prejudice outweighed its probative value was outweighed its probative value was a matter addressing itself to the a matter addressing itself to the discretion of the trial court." discretion of the trial court."

• Thomas v. State, 270 Ga. App. 181, 183 Thomas v. State, 270 Ga. App. 181, 183 (2004).(2004).



• Is it “harmless error”?Is it “harmless error”?• " Whether a constitutional violation " Whether a constitutional violation

constitutes harmless error depends on constitutes harmless error depends on whether the State can prove beyond a whether the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. This Court has contribute to the verdict. This Court has found violations of the standard stated in found violations of the standard stated in Crawford to be harmless because the Crawford to be harmless because the evidence against the defendant was evidence against the defendant was overwhelming or because the hearsay overwhelming or because the hearsay was cumulative of other evidence.”was cumulative of other evidence.”

– Willingham v. State, 279 Ga. 886, 887-888 (Ga. 2005)Willingham v. State, 279 Ga. 886, 887-888 (Ga. 2005)



• What if this issue had not been What if this issue had not been decided?decided?

• Binding precedent vs. Persuasive Binding precedent vs. Persuasive authorityauthority

• The highest courts are more free to The highest courts are more free to abandon precedent.abandon precedent.

Let’s Suppose. . . .Let’s Suppose. . . .What do you do when there is What do you do when there is

no case “on point”?no case “on point”?

• Smith v. State, Georgia Supreme Ct. Smith v. State, Georgia Supreme Ct. 1982.1982.

• Smith and his accomplice, Potter, were Smith and his accomplice, Potter, were charged with conspiracy to commit charged with conspiracy to commit murder and tried separately.murder and tried separately.

• At the first trial, Smith was convicted.At the first trial, Smith was convicted.• At the second trial, of Potter, the court At the second trial, of Potter, the court

dismissed the charges against Potter dismissed the charges against Potter because of insufficient evidence.because of insufficient evidence.



• Existing rule: In a joint trial of two Existing rule: In a joint trial of two co-conspirators, a failure of proof co-conspirators, a failure of proof as to one is a failure of proof as to as to one is a failure of proof as to both.both.

• ““Issue of first impression”: We Issue of first impression”: We know that’s the case in a know that’s the case in a joint trialjoint trial, , because the evidence is because the evidence is identicalidentical. . But what if they are tried But what if they are tried separately?separately?

• Therefore, certiorari granted.Therefore, certiorari granted.



• Answer: you can convict one and Answer: you can convict one and not the other, because:not the other, because:

– Witnesses and evidence in one trial Witnesses and evidence in one trial may not be available in the other;may not be available in the other;

– The prosecution may do a poor job in The prosecution may do a poor job in one trial and a good job in the other;one trial and a good job in the other;

– Plus, we have cases from four different Plus, we have cases from four different jurisdictions that all agree this is the jurisdictions that all agree this is the right answer.right answer.

7.7. The defendant’s trial The defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective.counsel was ineffective.

• ““To prevail on an ineffectiveness To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must show that claim, a defendant must show that his trial counsel's performance was his trial counsel's performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, there is a deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability the trial reasonable probability the trial would have ended differently.”would have ended differently.”

– Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984)(1984)

7.7. The defendant’s trial The defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective.counsel was ineffective.

• How do you prove it?How do you prove it?• Requires a “motion for new trial” Requires a “motion for new trial”

prior to appeal, with a new attorney.prior to appeal, with a new attorney.• Must show that trial lawyer "made errors Must show that trial lawyer "made errors

so serious that he was not functioning as so serious that he was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Amendment.”

– whether trial counsel "adequately investigated whether trial counsel "adequately investigated the facts and the law; the facts and the law;

– whether the omissions charged to him whether the omissions charged to him resulted from inadequate preparation rather resulted from inadequate preparation rather than from unwise choices of trial tactics and than from unwise choices of trial tactics and strategy.strategy.

A Bad ExampleA Bad Example

• FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. Parents sued manufacturer of rat Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.poison.

• Argument: Company could have Argument: Company could have added ingredient that would have made added ingredient that would have made child vomit.child vomit.

• STATUTE: Makes a company liable for STATUTE: Makes a company liable for damages caused by a product that is damages caused by a product that is not “merchantable” or “reasonably not “merchantable” or “reasonably suited to the use intended.”suited to the use intended.”

Banks v. ICI AmericasBanks v. ICI AmericasGeorgia Supreme Court, 1994Georgia Supreme Court, 1994

• FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.

• STATUTE: “The manufacturer of any STATUTE: “The manufacturer of any personal property . . . shall be liable in tort personal property . . . shall be liable in tort [civilly responsible], irrespective of privity, to [civilly responsible], irrespective of privity, to any natural person who may use, consume, any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property or reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or and who suffers injury to his person or property because the property when sold by property because the property when sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and the manufacturer was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” OCGA of the injury sustained.” OCGA § 51-1-11§ 51-1-11

• Argument: Company could have added Argument: Company could have added ingredient that would have made child vomit.ingredient that would have made child vomit.

Question PresentedQuestion Presented

•What does “merchantable What does “merchantable and reasonably suited to the and reasonably suited to the use intended” mean?use intended” mean?

•Romanian equivalent: Romanian equivalent: vandabil in conditii de vandabil in conditii de sigurantasiguranta

Existing RuleExisting Rule

• ““A product that is properly prepared, A product that is properly prepared, manufactured, packaged, and manufactured, packaged, and accompanied with adequate warnings and accompanied with adequate warnings and instructions cannot be said to be instructions cannot be said to be defective.” defective.” – Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, (Georgia 1975)Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, (Georgia 1975)

• Evidence of alternative safer designs Evidence of alternative safer designs rejected in rejected in Mann v. Coast Catamaran Mann v. Coast Catamaran Corp. Corp. (1985) (1985) – Where a product is reasonably suited for its Where a product is reasonably suited for its

indended use, such cannot be considered indended use, such cannot be considered defective design.”defective design.”

Court’s AnalysisCourt’s Analysis

• Court relies on The Court relies on The RestatementRestatement of Torts, legal of Torts, legal treatises, and treatises, and CasesCases from other jurisdictions from other jurisdictions

• Answer: In determining whether a product is Answer: In determining whether a product is “merchantable” and “reasonably suited” under “merchantable” and “reasonably suited” under the statute, the Court and jury can consider the statute, the Court and jury can consider whether there were alternative designs available whether there were alternative designs available to the manufacturer at the time the product was to the manufacturer at the time the product was manufactured. Court must balance risk against manufactured. Court must balance risk against usefulness of product.usefulness of product.

• Why? “This court has conducted an exhaustive Why? “This court has conducted an exhaustive review of foreign jurisdictions and learned review of foreign jurisdictions and learned treatises. That review has revealed a general treatises. That review has revealed a general consensus. . . .”consensus. . . .”

ProblemsProblems

• Until this case, manufacturers did not Until this case, manufacturers did not have to worry about the “alternative have to worry about the “alternative design” risks.design” risks.

• How can you order your business and How can you order your business and legal affairs if the Court is going to go and legal affairs if the Court is going to go and change the rules?change the rules?

• Roper v. Simmons (U.S. Supreme Court Roper v. Simmons (U.S. Supreme Court 2005).2005).– Juvenile death penalty case. Juvenile death penalty case.

ConclusionsConclusions• Facts must be developed at the trial court Facts must be developed at the trial court

level. The appellate courts merely apply level. The appellate courts merely apply those facts to the law.those facts to the law.

• The appellate process is designed to force The appellate process is designed to force parties to confront and fully address legal parties to confront and fully address legal issues at the trial court level.issues at the trial court level.

• Courts must honor the decisions of courts Courts must honor the decisions of courts above them above them ifif the present case fits within the present case fits within the logic and the logic and factsfacts of the binding of the binding precedent. Part of the art of lawyering is precedent. Part of the art of lawyering is distinguishingdistinguishing your case from binding your case from binding precedent.precedent.

www.tomrawlings.comwww.tomrawlings.com

http://www.tomrawlings.com/

the u.s. case precedent system: applications in the appellate courts tom c. rawlings judge, juvenile...

Documents