Why is it that both state and federal appellate courts consist of a
panel of judges, as opposed to just one? If the role of an appellate
court, including the US Supreme court, is to decide on the propriety
of a lower court's decision, and if that propriety is defined as
either being in accord with precedent or with the state or US
constitution, why would it require more than one judge/justice to
determine that?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 02 Aug 2005 21:53 PDT

The reason I'd had in mind is that, when it comes to examining the
rightness of a lower court's decision against a backdrop of precedent
and especially of constitutionality, the creation of judicial review
"panels," as opposed to a single judge, seems an acknowledgement of
the fact that wise old men and women can and will legitimately
disagree over the meaning/intent of the language contained in the
latter. Stated otherwise, strict constructionism is a pollyannish
myth, because it falsely presumes that constitutional rights and
prohibitions are so clearly written as to be correctly understood and
appliable by any one sound legal mind not bent on a social agenda. If
that were true, why the need to spread accountability for appellate
decisions among several justices? And why an odd number of justices?
Is that not also an acknowledgment that justices will in many cases
disagree and for rational reasons, but that such disagreement must not
be permitted to result in a tie vote, which would prevent the process
from coming to an end?
 
Am I making any sense?

Nautico,

You don't have to believe me, but I think it is tradition, but one
well-founded by long experience with human nature and the system of
common law, as well as how judges are appointed/elected.

Human nature:  It is only fair to the appellant to provide him with a
greater body of legal experience to review his case.  Otherwise, it
would just be one man's decision against another's with no control
that the one judging the appeal was impartial.  Impartiality and a
greater knowledge of the law is assured  - one hopes -  by a decision
reached by a panel of judges who bring a broader and deeper knowledge
of the law to bear on the case.

Common law:  Trial and review of cases under common law are based on
precedents, calling for encyclodical knowledge, again something a
panel of judges should be better able to provide, especially in the
days when searching for precedents was more difficult than it is
today.
Even with codefied laws, reference to interpretations presents the same problem.

Selection of Judges:  Judges are appointed and elected.  This does not
insure that the individuals are truly better qualified for a higher
bench.
(While looking at that question about filibuster, I discovered that
appointment of Supreme Court justices has often been a cause for
filibusters.  The Senate is seldom if ever agreed to the
qualifications of an appointee.)
And many, many judges are elected  - on the first Tuesday in November.
 Somehow, the system works, but only because no single elected judge
can decide an appeal.
This site discuss:
http://www.appellatelaw.com/g-electappoint.htm

And then it must be recognized that not only the appellant but also
the general public must accept that "justice has be done."  Elsewise,
the trust in the judicial system would be undermined.   No single
individual can be entrusted with a final decision  - as was the case
in feudal Europe and even later,although this was enshrined in the
concept of the ruler's  (kaiser, king, duke and lesser such) God-given
authority.  When this went out in England, the highest court of appeal
became the House of Lords, as it still is.
In some American states, the state senate was once the last court of appeal.

I hope this helps, Myoarin

In addition, there's the issue of division of labor. If there were
only one judge on each appeals court, he or she would be ridiculously
busy hearing cases, writing opinions, etc. On many appeals courts,
cases are often heard by subgroups of judges rather than the whole
court, at least at first.

Nautico,
You are absolutely right - IMHO.  Of course, that is a reason for
having an odd number of judges.  And, as you explain somewhat
differently than I tried to, in states based on the rule of law, the
law is not perfect  - being written by mere humans -  and the
interpretation ( or identification and use of precedents) is also
subject to human fallibility.  The Panel helps achieve a consensus, or
at least demonstrates a majority decision.  This is easier for a
private or corporate appellant to accept, also for the populace that
wants to see justice done.
MWalcoff-ga also has a point, maybe from the German legal system that
I am thinking of, where the higher courts consist of many judges,
grouped in chambers that concentrate on different types of appeals,
thereby allowing them some efficiency, since they don't have to be
"experts" on everything  - and hopefully more expert on their areas.
One of the problems of codefied law is that everything has to mesh: 
new laws may not contradict existing laws nor contrevene the
constitution.  But they sometimes do, and only a higher court  - or
the highest court(?) - can deal with this and rule a law to be
unconstitutional (just happened in Germany).  Lower courts may
recognize the problem and then refer the case to a higher court.
(Sloppy lawmakers in the parliament!)

Regards, Myoarin

This site is a good example of why more than one judge.  You can get
an answer from one person to which another might totally disagree. 
More judges help to reduce the inherent bias associated with judging.

Maybe, Ilmag-ga, but I don't see any contrasting opinions here.  The
three of us have brought complementary thoughts to the question, each
starting from different  vantage point.  But I certainly agree with
your final sentence.
Myoarin

myoarin - sorry I wasn't referring to this question specifically, but
to the site as a whole.  Some questions are easier to reason than
others - this question being one of them.

ilmag