How do US appellate courts know the facts of the case?
<p>My understanding is this: In the United States, in a jury trial the jury is the finder of fact, but they are not invited (or permitted) to share any of their findings beyond guilty/not guilty. I also know that a verdict of guilty can be appealed. Also, appellate courts aren't supposed to rule on questions of fact.</p>
<p>This, to me, looks like the court has no way of having any facts. So, what exactly do the appeals courts base their decisions on?</p>

<p>The appellate court gets the trial transcript which includes all the testimony (and exhibits or descriptions/photos of them) and the trial court's rulings. Also, each side presents an appeal brief, which will generally include a statement of facts, pointing out ones it thinks favorable to its views.</p>
<p>In civil cases a jury may be asked/instructed to give yes/no answers to a series of questions, but this is not normal in criminal cases.</p>
<p>An appellate  court can (and sometimes does) rule that there was not sufficient evidence to permit any reasonable jury to convict; to that extent it can rule on questions of fact. But, as the comment by ohwilleke mentions, an appellate  court does not hear new evidence. It can overturn the conviction and send the case back for a new trial, and in such a new trial additional evidence may be introduce <strong>at the trial court level</strong>.</p>

united-states jury appeal