mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (02/15/91)
In article <3331@igloo.scum.com> learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes: > >The defendant in the case was the US, period. The case being quoted is >Miller v. U.S. The history of how the case got there has absolutely >nothing to do with the fact that the author continued to think of Miller >as the defendant even when Miller bacame the plaintiff. Bill, I think you are confusing "appellant" and "plaintiff" here. If a person is a criminal defendant at trial, and that person then appeals the trial-court ruling, she is an appellant. The case at that point is then "styled" (named) by using the appellant's name first, followed by the appellee's name. The designation "defendant" (and "plaintiff" in civil cases) remains constant through the appeal process, whereas "appellant" and "appellee" may change depending on the results of the proceeding below. E.g. if there's a criminal case called U.S. v. Smith, and Smith is convicted but appeals, the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals will be styled "Smith v. U.S.", but Smith will still be the defendant. It is often the case, when reading these decisions, to run across designations like "defendant-appellant" or "defendant-appellee"; the appellate court is indicating both the party's status at trial and the party's status in the appeal. If Smith wins on appeal, but the government appeals the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court, which decides to hear the case, Smith will cease being appellant and become appellee. But he'll still be the defendant. And the case will be styled, once again, U.S. v. Smith. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "That information, as I have repeated infinitely mnemonic@eff.org | to myself, is classified ... though the keeping Electronic Frontier | of secrets ... seems less meaningful to me now." Foundation | --Major Garland Briggs