RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
The role of Circuit Courts in the adjudication process is an oftenunderstudied phenomenon. Most studies focus on the plea bargaining, trial, and sentencing phases of the criminal court process. Moreover, when studied within the context of terrorism, no study has focused on appellate outcomes of terrorists on direct appeal following trial. This study seeks to add to this gap in the literature by conducting an exploratory analysis of all terrorism appeals that occurred within Circuit Courts from 1988 to 2015. Using legal and content analysis, this study found that Circuit Courts are highly deferential to District Court decision-making when considering procedural or evidentiary challenges. However, when evaluating cases for issues that directly or indirectly relate to sentencing, Circuit Courts are much more active in altering cases, and voicing their discretion. Overall, Circuit Courts provide a much needed check on District Court discretion, even in appeals that deal with politically motivated crimes