> This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court.
Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be overruled??
The jury can be overruled, but the facts of the case cannot be changed. New evidence cannot be introduced, new arguments are generally limited. Basically,the appeals courts in the US exist to remedy wrongs done by lower courts (failure to follow rules, bad interpretation of the law, etc). They do not rehear the case in its entirety.
Appeals courts can word their decisions broadly or narrowly, in an attempt to control how much their decision can be applied to future cares.
Also worth noting, in instances of criminal convictions where new evidence is discovered, like DNA, often an executive or legislative remedy is required, because legally speaking, the facts of the original case are fixed.
Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be overruled??