Peirspictiochtai Ar An Saol
Zero-Based Justice
Part Five
Panels of judges are among the decision makers within the current system of justice in the United States.
In many cases, people and entities that have gone through trials have the right to appeal the decision of the judges and/or juries that made decisions in those trials.
One specific type of situation where appeals are extremely unlikely is when an individual is found “not guilty” in a criminal trial by a judge or a jury. The entity that brought that case against that individual is typically unable to appeal a “not guilty” verdict in a criminal case.
In most other situations, either party in a civil case as well as in a criminal case has the right to appeal decisions of a judge made during a trial, the right to appeal verdicts issued by a jury or a judge, and other aspects of a proceeding.
Those types of appeals are usually heard by courts specifically designated to review initial trials, verdicts, and related matters. The names of these courts can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some courts only hear cases dealing with criminal matters, while some courts only hear cases dealing with civil matters. Some courts may be designated to only hear cases involving actions of a governmental entity.
In many cases, those appellate courts are composed of multiple judges who review appeals, underlying testimony, and other aspects of an initial trial to ascertain that the law was followed in a correct manner.
The number of judges on a panel varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Sometimes, only a portion of a panel of judges will hear a direct appeal. Other times, the entire panel of judges will review a case.
After an appeals court makes its decision, individuals and entities who disagree with that decision can typically make an appeal to the entire appellate court – if the initial appeal was heard by a panel of judges that represented only a portion of the overall appeals court – or to a higher court.
As with appellate courts, the names of these higher courts can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most cases, the individual courts have names that reflect that each is the “supreme court” of a specific jurisdiction.
Typically, the final decision of cases that deal with state-level matters rests with the “supreme court” within that specific state, commonwealth, district, or territory. Once that “supreme court” makes its decision regarding a case, that decision becomes final for that case within that jurisdiction.
Some state-level matters, once decided within a specific jurisdiction, can be appealed further through the Federal judicial system.
The final decision of cases like that as well as all cases that deal with Federal-level matters rests with the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Once that court – composed of a panel of eight justices and one Chief Justice – makes its decision regarding a case, that decision becomes final for that case throughout the country.
Depending on the jurisdiction and whether the court is a state-level court or a Federal-level court, the judges on these appellate courts may be elected or appointed. They may be selected from nominees. They may stand for re-election where voters decide whether to “retain” or “re-elect” or “not retain” or “not re-elect” individuals in their positions. They may have their position for the rest of their life or until they choose to retire. There may or may not be mandatory age where a judge has to retire.
The next news column in this series will continue to detail specific characteristics of justice as it is practiced today in many parts of the United States as well as ways that justice could be practiced through Zero-Based Justice.
Peirspictiochtai Ar A Saol – Gaelic – Irish – for “Perspectives On Life” is a column focused on aspects of accountability and responsibility as well as ways people look at life.
Contact Richard McDonough at
© 2026 Richard McDonough
