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.
Terrorism has become a prime focus for scholars across and array of fields in recent years. While significant research exists that explains the etiology of terrorism, prosecution of terrorism, terrorists on trial, and counter-terrorism policy and laws, little to no examination of terrorists on appeal has been conducted. Due to the small number of terrorists that have gone to trial and who have subsequently appealed since the imposition of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (N=143, this comment will only explore the outcomes for terrorists in Circuit courts since 1988. This comment found that terrorism appeals are altered (via remand, reversal, vacation, or other devices) more often that traditional criminal appeals. Furthermore, that alterations to trial court decisions tend to be more in favor of defendents when the Circuit panael is comprised more of republican jurists. Lastly, only claims challenging the 'reasonableness' of or cvalculation of the sentence have ever been effective in returning favorable decisions for defendants on appeal.