Judges have broad discretion to interpret the law and manage their courtroom procedures
Judicial discretion at the trial level is given great deference when it comes to the judge’s interpretation of the law and their evaluation of evidence.
Appellate courts review the rulings and judgments made at the trial court level. The appellate review determines if the trial judge was legally correct in their judicial rulings. When necessary, the appellate court will refer to the trial court’s official transcript to better understand the judges ruling within the context of the actual proceedings.
Since the appellate judges were not present at the trial, second-guessing the trial judge in their capacity to make rulings would be too restrictive and not allow the trial court judge the intellectual freedom to make difficult decisions.
Therefore, as a matter of judicial policy, at both the federal and state levels, the appellate court will afford trial court judges great deference when reviewing their rulings.
