If a judge makes a factual error, can that be appealed?
<p>If a judge makes a factual error, and that error was an important part of his judgement, can the judgement be appealed?</p>

<p>Normally, an appellate court will only consider matters of law and assume the matters of fact as being settled at the full discretion of the trial judge.</p>

<p>What if the judgement makes a clear error of fact? For example, imagine that in the judgement it reads as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Since luminol will only fluoresce in the presence of blood, we can
  assume that the blood of the victim was present.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This statement is simply factually incorrect. Luminol will fluoresce when in contact with a wide range of catalyst materials, not just blood.</p>

<p>So, in this case the judge has made a factual error. Can such a provable error be the basis for an appellate court to overturn or remand a lower court decision?</p>

<p>When judges are finder of fact, the standard is one of deference to the trial court, but may be overcome if the trial court made a "clearly erroneous finding". See Concrete v. Const. Laborers, 508 U.S. 602 (1993).</p>

<p>Much depends on how and why the judge reached his finding. Whether or not this judge is an expert on luminol, he can only consider its properties if the matter was brought up as expert evidence, or if the point is agreed (there are other routes, such as asking the court to take judicial notice of facts, or citing a textbook that is not challenged by the other side, but they all boil down to one of the two).  If the judge chose one expert's view rather than another, that is grounds for appeal though certainly not enough to overturn the decision; but if the factual point was unchallenged or agreed, then he has no choice but to treat it as true, and no appeal can stand. Indeed, it would probably be grounds to appeal if he were to rely on kwowledge not in evidence (such as last month's case that found luminol can fluoresce in other circumstances). </p>

<p>Usually a factual finding of a trial court is reviewable on an appeal from a court of record, only if there is no evidence in the record from which a reasonable judge could have reached that conclusion. </p>

<p>The possibility that one could show beyond a reasonable doubt that the factual finding is actually false from evidence not in the record and from which the appellate court is not allowed to take "judicial notice" is irrelevant on appeal, although it may be the basis for a motion made in the trial court asking it to set aside its ruling base upon newly discovered evidence.</p>

united-states evidence appeal