Which term describes the standard used by appellate courts when reviewing trial court's findings of fact?

Which term describes the standard used by appellate courts when reviewing trial court's findings of fact?

• A. Harmless error
• B. Remand
• C. Motion for a new trial
• D. Clearly erroneous

Answer: (D)

The main idea is how appellate courts review what a trial court found about facts. When reviewing those findings, the standard is that the findings are not reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. This means the appellate court will defer to the trial court’s credibility judgments and weighing of evidence, since the trial judge observed witnesses and the courtroom dynamics firsthand. An appellate court will overturn a finding only if the record shows a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred, i.e., the finding lacks substantial support in the evidence. This is different from harmless error, which looks at whether a mistake in the trial process affected the outcome; remand is about sending the case back for further proceedings; and a motion for a new trial is a separate post-trial request to reconsider the verdict. None describe the specific standard for reviewing trial court findings of fact—that standard is clearly erroneous.

The main idea is how appellate courts review what a trial court found about facts. When reviewing those findings, the standard is that the findings are not reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. This means the appellate court will defer to the trial court’s credibility judgments and weighing of evidence, since the trial judge observed witnesses and the courtroom dynamics firsthand. An appellate court will overturn a finding only if the record shows a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred, i.e., the finding lacks substantial support in the evidence.

This is different from harmless error, which looks at whether a mistake in the trial process affected the outcome; remand is about sending the case back for further proceedings; and a motion for a new trial is a separate post-trial request to reconsider the verdict. None describe the specific standard for reviewing trial court findings of fact—that standard is clearly erroneous.