‘Affirmed’ – Definition in Law
When you hear that a case has been affirmed, it means that either an appellate court or a tribunal has agreed with an initial determination. "To affirm" refers to a binding decision made by the appellate court. An appellate court reviews decisions made in a lower court, and if they agree with what the lower court decided, they affirm their determination. By affirming the decision of the lower court, they are maintaining that it was a legally sound decision . In essence, they are validating or verifying the decision made previously.
There are two main types of judgments that appellate courts can make: an affirmance and a reversal. A reversal is when they think that due to the specific circumstances of the case, the original decision was not appropriate so they "reverse’ that decision. They could then potentially give a new sentence or judgment. An affirmance simply means that there has been some review of the decision, and that the decision stands as it is.
Operation of Appellate Courts
Appellate courts, also called courts of appeal, do not deal with witnesses or take evidence themselves. These courts simply review the decisions made by lower courts. While many people commonly think of the Supreme Court as the primary appellate court, most trials and judgments are appealed to the Court of Appeals rather than the Supreme Court. Appellate courts in North Carolina include the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court – and appeals from these courts often go to the Supreme Court.
Appeals to an appellate court fall under one of two categories: strict or discretionary. Strict appeals are guaranteed acceptance by the court, whereas discretionary appeals do not require acceptance by the appellate court. The appellate court will review a strict appeal after the notice of appeal is filed. Discretionary appeals are more complicated because the appeal must be granted by the court first, and only those appeals that are particularly important or likely to have an effect on future cases are allowed.
The appellate court reviews the record of what happened in a trial court (including the transcripts and written evidence) as well as how the law was interpreted at the lower level. The courts will then determine whether that decision was fair and legal. This means that the appellate court can either uphold or reverse the lower court’s decision. The appellate court cannot open a case to submit new evidence or conduct a jury trial.
When reviewing a case, the appellate court will examine whether the judiciary, or the legal interpretation, was fair. The appellate court does not have the power to review the circumstances of the case or the eventual decision itself. The court will only reverse a decision if it believes that the decision was not justified or that it was not fairly made. If the low court gave the jury incorrect instructions on how to apply the law, for instance, the appellate court may reverse the decision if the jury would have reached a different conclusion had it known the correct legal standard.
In any case, the court will dismiss the close calls – or "questions of fact" – handed to them by the lower court. As a result, the appellate court will not second guess the jury’s findings. It can, however, review the admissibility of evidence and the treatment of witnesses. The court will consider whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach the same decision that they did.
If the court does reverse the decision made in the trial court, the court will determine what must happen in future hearings. The court may send the case back down to the lower court or order a new hearing. The court will also consider whether an error was harmful to the losing party, or if it may have contributed to the losing decision. In this way, the court will consider whether the lower court’s decision was affected or not.
What Does an Affirmed Decision Mean?
When a court affirms a decision by a lower court or tribunal, it is essentially saying that it agrees with what the lower court or tribunal decided. For the party that lost at the lower court level, this means that their argument has been rejected in the higher court as well. Practically, this can mean that the losing party has exhausted all their legal options in regards to this particular issue or case and that they will have to either abide by the decision that was affirmed or find some other way to obtain the outcome they desired.
For the party that won at the lower court level, an affirmation is a win for them as well — not only does it maintain the status quo of their victory, but it makes it more difficult for the losing party to challenge that victory again in the future.
An affirmed decision can have other implications as well, depending on the specific ruling that was affirmed as well as the nature of the case. For example, if a judge affirms a decision in a criminal case where a defendant was charged with DUI, it may not just mean the defendant must pay the fines or serve the sentence they received, but also that their attorney fees cannot be recovered or that they are unlikely to stand much chance of successfully appealing the decision later on.
On the other hand, if a judge affirms a decision that awarded a personal injury plaintiff a significant amount of money, having that ruling affirmed means the other party will likely have to pay it, barring any instances of requesting a retrial, taking the decision up to a higher court or otherwise attempting to appeal the decision.
Examples of Case Studies
In a recent case involving Anderson v. City of Claremore, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. A jury verdict and the judgment have entered against Anderson on his claim that Claremore, Oklahoma’s drug policy violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Anderson subsequently appealed, arguing that Claremore’s policy for pre-employment and random drug testing created a permissible extension of the City’s ability to drug test its employees, and that the drug-testing program was unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The Court affirmed the decision, pointing out that the City had a "Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace Policy" which prohibited illegal drug use by employees or applicants, and that the policy further required that federal law enforcement employees comply with specific laws administered by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. Ultimately, the Court held that Anderson failed to establish that the judicial proceedings in his case were sufficiently final for appellate purposes, and as such, affirmed the lower court’s decision that dismisses Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in its entirety.
In Jolley v. Clay County, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order that awarded judgment to the State of Ohio, and specifically, the State of Ohio Office of Budget and Management.
Jolley, a former employee of the State of Ohio, alleged that he filed a whistleblower complaint as well as a lawsuit against the State for an alleged discrimination complaint . In addition, Jolley also alleged that the State failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, and that the State retaliated against him for filing the FMLA claim. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court determined that the State of Ohio is entitled to sovereign immunity, under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, barring the suit for both procedural and nonprocedural claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
In Zage v. Oldham County Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s partial summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
In Zage’s complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Board of Education, as well as the defendants Darrel Vincent, Stan Cuevas and Keith Usher, violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as his civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988; specifically, Zage sought claim against the Board for retaliating against him by refusing to renew his contract in violation of his First Amendment rights. Following the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Zage argued on appeal that the district court erred in its decision, claiming that the district court mistakenly relied on the Board’s classification of Zage as an employee at-will. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not err in making its ruling, and citing precedent, reversed the order for partial summary judgment and remanded the case back to district court.
Appeals and Limitations
A common question asked during a client consultation is "What does affirmed mean?" or "What does it mean that my expungement was affirmed?" Although the word itself carries a non-legal understanding, the process that leads to an "affirmation" in the criminal procedure context is a longer process than is often apparent.
A successful appeal in the New Jersey Appellate Division can only be taken after an adverse decision of a trial court – a denial of a pre-trial motion, conviction or denial of post-conviction relief. For example, assuming a client was found guilty of a crime following a jury trial their appeal would be taken to the New Jersey Appellate Division. On that appeal the defendant would ask that the conviction be reversed and new trial ordered. If the conviction is upheld by the Appellate Division the next step is a petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Essentially an appellate override of a New Jersey Appellate Division decision is needed to get a case to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The one exception to that rule is an appeal from a final decision of the Law Division, Tax Court, or Workers Compensation Division – all of which lie directly with the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Even so, the right to appeal a final decision of the Law Division involving a sentence of six (6) months or less directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court is limited and likely only available when there is a jurisdictional question presented.
An appeal to the Supreme Court is again calculated in a similar way to a filing at the Appellate Division. The name of the game is preserving legal errors for later review. As a consequence , the briefs filed with the Supreme Court are relied upon even more heavily than those submitted to the Appellate Division. Assuming that an appeal is subsequently denied a party is left with one more chance via a cross motion that is not frequently given any weight.
Almost all criminal appeals lead to an "affirmed" on appeal. That is, a party that loses at trial will almost always lose on appeal for the simple fact that the standard of review on appeal is a highly deferential one. The Appellate Division does not act as a second jury and even had a juror believed that an error was made at trial the matter is unlikely to make a difference in the eyes of the appellate court. After an affirmed decision by the Appellate Division a party must then seek a petition for certification.
Even if the Supreme Court grants certification the conviction or final order will likely be upheld. In fact, the Supreme Court follows a rule of four. Only four of the seven justices need agree that an appeal should be heard. If certification is then granted the only realistic possibility for success is obtaining a new trial. That is, consider a murder conviction that is affirmed by both the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the matter there is no damage award entered or any other type of remedy who’s loss would warrant an automatic win on retrial.
There is one important consideration at play even after the New Jersey Supreme Court affirms a conviction. So long as the court finds that the trial court acted properly the sentence will be discharged. That is, state imposed incarceration, parole, probation, fines, assessments or fees should be completed in full. Assuming the time period for such is fulfilled the only recourse a party has is to seek an expungement of their criminal record.