Originally Posted by The Atheist
In the US, appeals are generally about process failures, not disputes about the jury's decision as such. The verdict gets thrown out on appeal not because the jury made the "wrong" decision, but because they made "right" decision as the outcome of a flawed or incomplete legal process.
The appeals court is basically judges weighing in on matters of law and legal process, as subject matter experts. If the prosecution failed to prosecute according to the law, for example. Or if the defense got an acquittal because they withheld evidence they were required by law to produce. Etc.
This is less ironic, but more reasonable, in my opinion.
Is it different in NZ?
Do appeals courts have juries that weigh in on matters of legal process expertise? Do appeals generally focus on disputing the jury's verdict as such? Are appeals court judges ruling on the propriety of jury decisions in lower courts, rather than the propriety of the legal process of the trial?