Appellate work looks quiet from the hallway. A single lawyer hunched over a mountain of paper, the hum of a scanner, the clack of keys late at night. There is no jury leaning forward. No witness leaning back. No prosecutor striding. What you do have is the record, that stern archive of everything that actually happened in the trial court. Appeals are a fight over that record and over the law that governs it. A good criminal defense lawyer approaches an appeal the way a seasoned mechanic approaches a temperamental engine, by listening carefully, checking systems methodically, and refusing to guess when they can measure.
This is how the process really works when you do it for a living and you want to give your client a real chance.
The first conversation after the verdict
By the time the jury files out and the judge sets sentencing, everyone feels wrung out. The client wants promises. The family wants timelines. The lawyer wants ten minutes to breathe. But the clock for an appeal does not care about anyone’s emotional needs. Most jurisdictions allow a narrow window to file a notice of appeal, often thirty days from judgment. If you blow that, you are arguing about extraordinary remedies, not routine appeals.
In those first hours, a criminal defense lawyer makes two moves. File the notice if the client wants it. Then start managing expectations with ruthless clarity. An appeal is not a second trial. There will be no new witnesses, no new evidence unless the issue is narrowly framed, such as newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with reasonable diligence. The court of appeals reviews what happened and asks whether the law was applied correctly and whether any mistake mattered enough to require a new trial or a different sentence.
Setting this framework early matters. It influences which issues you chase, how you marshal resources, and whether the client understands the long road ahead. I have had clients do a complete 180 in that first conversation, insisting on vindication on Monday and then, once they hear about the standard of review, deciding that targeted post-conviction relief might fit better. The lawyer’s job is to make the landscape visible and avoid the mirage.
Building the record you will actually argue
You cannot spot error without a complete record, and you cannot write persuasively without living inside that record. That means transcripts of every hearing that matters, trial days, bench conferences if recorded, sentencing, and any in-chambers proceedings that made it onto the audio. It also means exhibits, admitted and excluded, the docket, the jury instructions with annotations, and any written motions with attachments. If you think you remember what happened, stop. Memory contaminates appeals. The record cures it.
I once handled a case where everyone swore the prosecutor mentioned the defendant’s post-arrest silence during closing. The transcript said otherwise. What actually happened was a rhetorical question that edged right up to the line without crossing it. It was improper, but it was not the silence comment my client was furious about. That difference mattered to the standard of review and to whether the claim was preserved.
Getting the record often means wrestling with reality. Court reporters have backlogs. Audio files vanish into mislabeled folders. Appellate deadlines do not pause for clerical mishaps. A calm, persistent drumbeat of requests, receipts, confirmations, and follow-ups keeps the train moving. If a transcript is missing, you file a motion to supplement the record or for an extension before the calendar crushes you. No drama, just paperwork and timestamps.
Preservation, standards, and the cold shower of appellate law
Even before you read a single line of transcript, think about preservation. Was the issue raised in the trial court? Was there a contemporaneous objection? Did counsel articulate the legal basis, or was there only a general protest? Did the judge rule? If you have a preserved error, you might get de novo review on law or abuse-of-discretion on evidentiary calls. If you do not, you are likely looking at plain error or its local cousin, a steep hill where the appellate court must find an error that is obvious, prejudicial, and outcome-determinative.
This is the moment you tell yourself the truth. Many promising appellate issues die in the swamp of non-preservation. When I was greener, I tried to rescue them with rhetorical pyrotechnics. Now I take the cold shower early. If the issue is unpreserved, say so and craft the argument accordingly. Sometimes a plain error claim is still worth it, especially where the error undermines a structural safeguard, like the right to counsel or a public trial. More often, it becomes supporting cast for a stronger claim.
Standards of review are the spine of the brief. Appellate judges read hundreds of these. They are allergic to arguments that ignore the lens they are required to use. Once you accept the lens, you can exploit it. For example, ineffective assistance of counsel claims focus not on whether the jury could have convicted, but on whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s errors, the result would have been different. That is not a 51 percent preponderance. It is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Those words have real content if you fill them with specifics.
Issues that tend to travel well on appeal
The best appellate issues usually share two traits. They are, first, rooted in the record with sharp edges, and second, anchored in a legal principle the appellate court cares about. This is not about cleverness. It is about relevance to the judiciary’s role.
The classics include misstatements of law in jury instructions, admission of unreliable or unduly prejudicial evidence, prosecutorial misconduct that crosses from zeal to unfairness, and constitutional violations that are clear enough to reach without fact-finding beyond the record. A shaky chain of custody usually flops on appeal unless it was egregious and preserved. A Batson challenge to discriminatory jury strikes lives and dies on the specifics of voir dire and whether defense counsel built a real comparative juror analysis.
Sentencing errors are their own genre. Statutory miscalculations, guideline mistakes, or sentences imposed using clearly erroneous facts can be fertile ground, especially in federal court. It still shocks defendants to learn that many discretionary sentencing choices are reviewed under a deferential standard. If the judge explained the reasoning and stayed inside the authorized range, you often need a strong showing to get traction.
Triaging the case file without losing your mind
A serious appellate case spawns paper like a midsummer thunderstorm spawns mosquitoes. Managing it is not glamorous, but it determines whether you can think straight. I keep a single authoritative issue list and a living timeline. Every potential error gets a short write-up: where it appears in the record, whether it was preserved, which standard applies, and a first-draft articulation of prejudice. If it survives to the second pass, it gets a research memo with citations and counterarguments.
The first pass is generous. The second pass is violent. You cut. A handful of issues will earn full treatment in the opening brief, usually two to four if you want real depth. Judges do not reward kitchen-sink briefs. They prefer clarity over volume, and they notice when a criminal defense lawyer has the discipline to focus. I have had the strongest issue sit in the middle of the brief rather than the lead because the standard of review on the lead issue favored us more. That is strategy, not ego.
Research that looks like craft, not keyword bingo
Anyone can pull cases. The question is whether you can build a legal architecture that gives the court permission to rule for you. That requires treating precedents as living objects, not decorative quotes. Start with the controlling authority in your jurisdiction, then map the splits and the evolution. If you rely on a case for a proposition, ask what that case feared. Courts often write to avoid mischief. Your job is to show that your requested result avoids the mischief and advances the court’s stated values.
Analogy matters. If the trial court allowed a police officer to give drug courier profile testimony masquerading as lay opinion, you can pull precedent on expert testimony under Rule 702, but you also want cases on the risk of cloaked expertise slipping past the gatekeeper. The persuasive engine is not the rule cited, it is the shared worry about reliability and juror confusion.
Do not neglect the negative space. Identify the best counterarguments and cite them candidly. Then explain why they do not control your facts. Appellate judges appreciate a criminal defense lawyer who respects the court’s intelligence and helps solve the problem instead of selling.
Writing briefs that judges want to read
Appellate writing is more like building a bridge than painting a mural. You do not want the reader to admire your adjectives. You want the reader to cross safely and feel it would be riskier to turn back. That means clear fact statements with citations woven in, issue statements that capture the legal conflict without slanting into propaganda, and arguments that move in a straight line: rule, application, consequence.
Tone matters. Indignation usually reads as insecurity unless the record is screaming. Humor is dangerous unless you have perfect control. What works, reliably, is restraint and precision. If the prosecutor misrepresented evidence in closing, quote the line and cite the page. Then show why the misrepresentation mattered given the contested issues at trial. Was identity the fight? Did the misstatement fill a hole in the proof? Did the judge give a curative instruction, and was it sufficient under your jurisdiction’s test?
I have a rule for adjectives: cut half, then cut half again. If you still want to call something egregious, make sure the record justifies the charge. I once removed the word “egregious” from a draft, only to have the panel use it in the opinion. It reads better when they say it, not you.
Oral argument, when to chase it and how to use it
Not every appeal gets oral argument, and not every case benefits from it. Some courts grant it routinely. Others expect you to request it and justify why argument would aid the court. The calculus is practical. If your case turns on a clean issue of law with recent controlling authority, the brief may suffice. If your case involves a messy standard like harmless error, or if the record is complex and a judge could get lost, argument helps.
Treat oral argument as a conversation with three hurried experts who read your brief and have questions. The most common mistake I see is trying to re-brief the case at the podium. Focus on the pressure points. Lead with your jurisdiction’s test for the issue and where the record meets it. If a judge tosses you a hypothetical, your answer should show the principle you are relying on, not just your desired outcome. Judges test the edges. If you cannot articulate a limiting principle, you are likely to lose the swing vote.
I prepare argument outlines that are thinner than you would expect, often a single page with anchors: key citations, record page numbers, the clean articulation of the standard, and the ordered relief I want. Then I run a moot with colleagues who enjoy disruption. They ask the rude questions now so I do not hear them for the first time in a wood-paneled room.
Harmless error and the art of prejudice
You can prove error and still lose because the court finds the error harmless. This doctrine swallows many meritorious claims. The antidote is to write prejudice into the bloodstream of your argument from the start. Show how the error affected the trial’s architecture. If inadmissible prior bad acts came in, map precisely when they were mentioned, by whom, how the prosecutor wielded them in closing, and why the government’s case on the element in question was not overwhelming.
Avoid generic prejudice language. Instead of saying the error undermined the fairness of the trial, specify that the only eyewitness recanted mid-trial and the state leaned heavily on propensity evidence to plug the gap. Use the transcript to reconstruct the jury’s likely path. Appellate judges are not jurors, but they appreciate a guided tour of how the case was actually argued.
On the defense side, your best friend is a thin record on the contested issue. If the state’s proof was truly overwhelming, concede it. Credibility with the court on that point buys you credibility when you argue that, in this case, the proof was not overwhelming at all.
Ineffective assistance, direct appeal or post-conviction
Clients love ineffective assistance claims. They seem intuitive: my lawyer messed up, fix it. The reality is technical. Many jurisdictions discourage or bar ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal because the record is rarely sufficient to evaluate counsel’s performance and strategy. You usually need a collateral proceeding to develop facts, call trial counsel, and ask why they did or did not do something. That means filing for post-conviction relief rather than packing the appeal with speculation.
There are exceptions. If the deficiency is clear from the record, for example, failure to object to a blatantly erroneous instruction that the same lawyer later conceded was a mistake, a direct appeal claim can work. But tread carefully. You do not want to tank your client’s better shot later by raising a weak ineffective assistance claim now and getting a merits denial that triggers preclusion.
A practical move is to flag potential ineffective assistance issues in the opening brief but explain that they are better suited to post-conviction, referencing the jurisdiction’s case law on record sufficiency. That alerts the court and preserves credibility without closing doors.
Client communication that respects the grind
Appeals stretch across months, sometimes more than a year. Deadlines loom, then nothing happens for weeks. Clients interpret silence as abandonment. A criminal defense lawyer who handles appeals learns to schedule communication. I send a roadmap early, a mid-record update, a pre-brief summary of issues selected and why, and a heads-up before filing. At each point I explain what the court will do next and the realistic range of outcomes.
Hard conversations belong early. If the best outcome is a resentencing rather than a new trial, say so in plain English. If the appellate court is statistically unlikely to reverse on the lead issue, do not hide behind jargon. I had a client once who was disappointed in a partial win because he had attached his hopes to a retrial. We had talked about this. We talked again. A month later, at resentencing, he thanked me and meant it. People can handle the truth if it arrives on time.
The prosecutor you do not see on TV
Appellate prosecutors are not trial bulldogs. They are specialized lawyers, often thoughtful and meticulous. They know the record as well as you do. They have pride in their work and an institutional memory of what arguments last beyond the case at hand. Treat them as professionals. It makes your life easier, and it serves your client.
Negotiation sometimes happens on appeal, especially in cases with sentencing errors. I have resolved cases by agreeing to remand for resentencing with a specific correction rather than litigating five issues to the bitter end. No grandstanding, just a phone call and a stipulation. It is not glamorous, but it brought my client home six months earlier.
Ethical edges and strategic restraint
Appeals tempt exaggeration. The record sits still. You can cherry-pick. Resist it. Mischaracterizing the record is the fast lane to losing credibility and, in rare cases, your bar card. If a fact hurts you, state it accurately and argue why it does not change the legal analysis. Judges notice fairness. Over a career, that reputational capital pays dividends you cannot quantify.
Strategic restraint is not weakness. It is a form of respect for the court’s attention. I once had a case with seven plausible issues. We briefed three. The opinion addressed two and included a footnote approving our judgment in narrowing the appeal. That footnote meant more to me than the victory because it built trust for the next client.
After the decision, the next fork in the road
When the opinion arrives, read it slowly, twice. Celebrate or mourn later. Ask first: is there a basis to seek rehearing? Appellate courts do not love rehearing petitions. They entertain them when the court overlooked a controlling point or misapprehended a material fact. Do not file a rehearing petition that simply re-argues the case. It wastes capital.
Next, evaluate higher review. Petitioning a supreme court is not routine. The question is not whether the lower court erred, but whether the issue deserves the high court’s attention. Is there a split among districts? A recurring legal question that needs clarity? A constitutional matter with broad impact? If the answer is no, explain to the client why risking another year may not be wise, especially if a negotiated resolution on remand is possible.
If you lose and the case is truly over, talk to the client about collateral consequences and practical steps. Expungement eligibility years down the line, professional licensing, immigration issues, firearm rights, restitution, and parole conditions all matter. An appeal can be part of a longer arc. Help the client see the arc.
A short checklist for the road
- File the notice of appeal early, then calendar every deadline with redundancies. Order and audit the entire record, including exhibits and audio if available. Build a living issue list with preservation status and standards of review. Draft with prejudice analysis embedded, not tacked on at the end. Prepare for oral argument by practicing answers to your worst questions.
What separates competent from compelling
Plenty of lawyers can write a decent brief. The ones who win more than their share share habits that look boring from the outside. They are punctual. They are allergic to sloppiness. They read the record until it yields patterns. They test their own arguments for weak joints, https://trialdigest2827.iamarrows.com/how-a-criminal-defense-lawyer-defends-theft-and-fraud-cases shore them up, or cut them. They translate doctrine into the lived reality of a trial. Most of all, they respect the appellate court’s role and help it do its job.
A criminal defense lawyer who treats an appeal as a second swing with the same bat will burn time and goodwill. The lawyer who treats it as a different sport altogether, with different rules and a different field, gives the client the best chance. The glory in appellate work is quiet, but it is real. You move the law in inches. You correct wrongs that seemed immovable. You keep faith with the idea that process matters, not as a slogan but as a working tool in a file you carried, marked up, and learned by heart.
If that sounds like craftsmanship, that is because it is. And like any craft, the tools are not secret. The skill lies in how you use them when no one is watching, the record is staring back, and the margin between losing and winning is measured in commas, citations, and the courage to cut your favorite paragraph for the client’s sake.
Law Offices Of Michael Dreishpoon
Address: 118-35 Queens Blvd Ste. 1500, Forest Hills, NY 11375, United States
Phone: +1 718-793-5555
Experienced Criminal Defense & Personal Injury Representation in NYC and Queens
At The Law Offices of Michael Dreishpoon, we provide aggressive legal representation for clients facing serious criminal charges and personal injury matters. Whether you’ve been arrested for domestic violence, drug possession, DWI, or weapons charges—or injured in a car accident, construction site incident, or slip and fall—we fight to protect your rights and pursue the best possible outcome. Serving Queens and the greater NYC area with over 25 years of experience, we’re ready to stand by your side when it matters most.