Appellate Strategy Starts at the Pleadings: Building a Record That Survives Review

The lawyers who win in the appellate courts are not the lawyers who write the best briefs. They are the lawyers whose trial records, when reviewed three years later by a panel of judges who were not present for the trial, support the legal arguments the briefs are making. Appellate advocacy is a discipline, but it is downstream from trial advocacy. The case won at the Tenth Circuit was won at the district court — sometimes years earlier — by trial counsel who understood that the record being built would eventually be reviewed and acted accordingly.

In thirty-six years of trial and appellate practice, I have argued cases before the United States Supreme Court, before the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and in state appellate courts across multiple jurisdictions. The pattern that distinguishes successful appellate outcomes from unsuccessful ones is consistent. The successful outcomes belong to trial lawyers who treated every meaningful ruling, every preserved objection, and every offer of proof as an investment in the appellate record. The unsuccessful outcomes belong to trial lawyers who treated the trial as the conclusion of the matter and discovered, too late, that the appellate record on which their case would be reviewed did not support the arguments they wanted to make.

Preservation Is the First Discipline

The most fundamental appellate concept — and the one most often violated by trial counsel — is preservation. An issue not preserved at the trial court level is generally not available for appellate review. The preservation requirement applies to substantive legal issues, to evidentiary rulings, to jury instructions, to constitutional challenges, and to most procedural matters that trial counsel might want the appellate court to address.

Preservation requires that the issue be raised in the trial court with sufficient specificity that the trial court has the opportunity to rule on it. A general objection is usually insufficient. A specific objection that identifies the legal basis is required. A motion that requests the relief being sought, supported by the legal authority, must be filed and ruled upon. When the trial court rules adversely, the ruling must be on the record in a form that can be reviewed.

The discipline of preservation is incompatible with the rhythm of trial. Trial counsel are focused on the witness on the stand, the next exhibit, the next ruling. The preservation work — getting the specific objection on the record, requesting the relief being sought, ensuring the ruling is clear — feels like a distraction from the actual advocacy. But the work that feels like a distraction is the work that builds the record on which the case will eventually be reviewed.

I tell trial associates working with me that they are responsible for preservation in real time. While I am examining the witness, they are watching for the objections that need to be made, the offers of proof that need to be placed on the record, and the rulings that need to be clarified. When the trial concludes, the preservation record should be complete enough that any appellate brief can be supported by record citations. This is not glamorous work, but it is the foundation that makes the glamorous work possible.

Standards of Review Quietly Determine Outcomes

Appellate courts review trial court decisions under various standards. De novo review applies to legal questions and permits the appellate court to substitute its judgment for the trial court’s. Abuse of discretion applies to many discretionary rulings — evidentiary rulings, certain procedural decisions, equitable remedies — and produces affirmance unless the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of permissible choices. Clearly erroneous review applies to factual findings and produces affirmance unless the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Substantial evidence review applies to certain factual findings and produces affirmance if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the finding.

The strategic implications of standards of review begin at the trial court. The issues that will eventually be reviewed under de novo standards are the ones where trial preparation matters less and appellate preparation matters more. The issues that will be reviewed under deferential standards are the ones where the trial record makes the difference. The defense team that knows which standard of review will apply to which issue can prioritize the trial-level work that has the greatest appellate payoff.

Discretionary rulings, in particular, are won at the trial court or not at all. An evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion will rarely be reversed on appeal even if it was clearly wrong. The defense lawyer who lost the evidentiary battle at the trial court has lost the appellate battle as well in most cases. The strategic implication is that significant trial-level work should be devoted to the discretionary rulings that may be case-dispositive, with the understanding that those rulings will not be effectively reviewed if the trial court goes the wrong way.

The opposite implication applies to issues that will be reviewed de novo. A legal issue raised but lost at the trial court is fully available for appellate review, and the appellate court will substitute its judgment without deference to the trial court’s analysis. The trial-level work on these issues should be directed toward preservation and clear presentation, with the understanding that the appellate court will be the actual decision-maker. The defense lawyer who fights too hard on de novo issues at the trial court, at the expense of the discretionary issues that the trial court will actually decide, has misallocated the trial-level effort.

The Record That Speaks at the Appellate Court

The appellate court reviews the record, not the trial. The judges who decide the appeal have not seen the witnesses, have not watched the demeanor, have not experienced the moment when the jury reacted. They read the transcripts, examine the exhibits, and consider the rulings as they appear in the trial court’s docket. The record that speaks at the appellate court is the record that exists in writing.

This has implications for how testimony is developed at trial. A witness’s demeanor at the moment of impeachment matters to the jury that watches it; it does not appear in the appellate record. The cross-examination point that is most effective when delivered in the courtroom may be invisible in the transcript that the appellate judges read. The trial lawyer who develops a record that depends on factors not captured in the transcript is the trial lawyer whose appellate record is weaker than the trial verdict suggested.

The discipline that responds to this asymmetry is to develop testimony with attention to how it will read in the transcript, not just to how it will resonate in the courtroom. The questions should be clear enough that the appellate judge reading the transcript years later understands what was being asked. The answers, when favorable, should be elicited in language that translates to the transcript. The objections, when made, should specify the legal basis in terms that the appellate court can evaluate without reference to the courtroom dynamics that produced them.

The same discipline applies to exhibits. The trial exhibit is part of the record on appeal, but the explanation of why the exhibit matters often is not. The defense team that ensures the record reflects the significance of each exhibit — through witness testimony, through demonstrative aids that are themselves admitted, through summaries that explain the underlying documents — produces an appellate record that supports the arguments the briefs will make.

The Daubert Record and the Special Importance of Expert Testimony

Expert testimony in modern litigation is gated by Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence framework that has developed around it. The trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which means the trial-level battle is dispositive in most cases.

The Daubert record built at the trial court is therefore one of the highest-priority appellate investments in any case where experts matter. The Daubert briefing should be comprehensive, with attention to every methodological challenge that can credibly be raised. The Daubert hearing, if one is held, should develop the record on the methodological issues with the rigor that a trial-level hearing requires. The trial court’s ruling — whether favorable or unfavorable — should be clear enough that the appellate court can review it without speculation about the basis.

The defense team that loses a Daubert challenge often discovers on appeal that the trial court’s ruling, however thinly reasoned, is not subject to effective review. The team that wins a Daubert challenge can usually preserve the victory on appeal if the trial record supports the ruling. The asymmetry rewards thorough investment in the Daubert battle at the trial court, even when the substantive merits of the case may eventually overshadow the expert issues.

Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms

Jury instructions are reviewed under various standards depending on the nature of the alleged error. The standard for reviewing the giving of an instruction differs from the standard for reviewing the refusal to give one. The standard for reviewing the substance of an instruction differs from the standard for reviewing the formulation. The defense team that anticipates the appellate review of the instructions develops the record at the charge conference accordingly.

The most fundamental discipline is to propose instructions in writing, with citations to the legal authority that supports each proposed instruction. The instructions that the trial court refuses to give become the basis for appellate challenge, but only if the proposed instructions are on the record in a form the appellate court can review. The instructions that the trial court gives over objection become the basis for appellate challenge, but only if the objection is specific enough that the appellate court understands the alleged error.

The verdict form deserves similar attention. The verdict form structures what the jury decides and how the jury communicates that decision. A general verdict can be challenged on more limited grounds than a special verdict that requires the jury to make specific findings. The defense team that proposes a verdict form structured to support its appellate strategy — special interrogatories that require findings on the elements likely to be challenged, separate verdicts on multiple claims, allocations that permit later challenges to specific portions of the award — has built the foundation for the appellate work that may follow.

The Post-Trial Motions That Set Up the Appeal

The post-trial motions filed after an adverse verdict are not merely opportunities to revisit issues already decided. They are the formal occasion to crystallize the trial record into the issues that will appear on appeal. The motion for judgment as a matter of law, the motion for new trial, the motion to alter or amend judgment, and the various other post-trial motions each serve specific functions in preserving issues for appellate review.

The motion for judgment as a matter of law preserves the sufficiency of the evidence challenge. The motion must be made at the appropriate time during trial — typically at the close of plaintiff’s case and at the close of all evidence — to preserve the issue, and it must be renewed post-verdict under the relevant procedural rule. The motion for new trial preserves a range of challenges, including challenges to the weight of the evidence, the giving or refusal of jury instructions, the admission or exclusion of evidence, and various procedural errors during trial. The motion to alter or amend judgment can address issues with the formulation of the judgment, the calculation of damages, and the inclusion of relief.

Each of these motions requires the same discipline as the underlying trial preservation: specific identification of the issue, citation to the record, citation to the controlling legal authority, and an unambiguous request for relief. The post-trial motion is not the place to introduce new issues, but it is the place to ensure that the issues raised at trial are framed for the appellate review that will follow.

The Senior Practitioner’s Perspective

Trial lawyers who do not handle appeals often underestimate how much of the appellate outcome is determined by their trial-level work. They assume that a skilled appellate lawyer can rescue a case from any record. They are wrong. The skilled appellate lawyer can present the existing record in its most favorable light, can identify the strongest arguments the record supports, and can advocate effectively before the appellate court. The skilled appellate lawyer cannot create record that does not exist, cannot preserve issues that were not preserved, and cannot supply objections that were not made.

The trial lawyers who work with the best appellate lawyers have learned this lesson and apply it throughout the trial. They build the record with the appellate review in mind. They preserve the issues that will matter on appeal. They develop the testimony and the exhibits with attention to how they will read in the transcript. They file the post-trial motions that crystallize the issues for review. They have invested in the appellate outcome from the moment the complaint was filed.

The defense lawyers who do not work with the best appellate lawyers have not learned this lesson, and they discover it the hard way when the appellate brief is being written and the record will not support the arguments they want to make. The cost of that discovery is borne by the client, who learns that the trial loss is also the appellate loss, not because the appellate arguments are bad but because the record on which those arguments must rest was not built with appellate review in mind. That is the discipline this practice requires, and it is the discipline that separates senior trial counsel from the next generation that has not yet learned it.

—

Otto K. Hilbert, II is a Trial Attorney with AEGIS Law. He brings over 36 years of first-chair trial and appellate experience to representing clients in complex commercial litigation, securities defense, and regulatory enforcement matters. He has tried cases in 23 states and is admitted before the United States Supreme Court and multiple United States Courts of Appeals.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers facing specific legal matters should consult qualified counsel.