Legal Definitions - confessing error

Confessing error refers to a formal statement made by one party in an appeal, typically the party who won in the lower court, acknowledging that the lower court made a legal mistake as claimed by the opposing party (the appellant). When a party "confesses error," they are essentially agreeing with the appellant that the lower court's decision was flawed on a specific legal point. This often streamlines the appellate process, as the appellate court may then reverse or modify the lower court's decision based on this admission, sometimes without needing full oral arguments.

• Example 1 (Criminal Appeal - Procedural Error): Imagine a criminal trial where the judge mistakenly gave the jury an incorrect instruction about a key element of the crime. The defendant was convicted and then appealed, arguing this specific jury instruction was a legal error. On appeal, the prosecution reviews the case and agrees that the judge's instruction was indeed incorrect and prejudicial to the defendant. The prosecution then files a brief confessing error, admitting that the trial court made a mistake. This admission would likely lead the appellate court to overturn the conviction and send the case back for a new trial.

• Example 2 (Civil Appeal - Misinterpretation of Law): A small business sued a state agency, claiming the agency misinterpreted a new environmental regulation when denying their permit application. The lower court sided with the state agency. The business appealed. While the appeal is pending, the state agency's legal department reviews the case and realizes that the lower court's interpretation of the regulation was, in fact, inconsistent with recent guidance issued by a higher authority. To avoid further litigation and uphold the correct interpretation of the law, the state agency's lawyers file a document confessing error, acknowledging that the lower court made a legal mistake in its ruling.

• Example 3 (Government Agency - Constitutional Issue): A city ordinance was upheld by a lower court against a challenge claiming it violated free speech rights. The plaintiff appealed. After the appeal was filed, the city's legal counsel reviewed the case in light of a recent Supreme Court decision on a similar issue. Realizing that the city's ordinance, as interpreted by the lower court, would likely be found unconstitutional under the new precedent, the city's attorneys decide to confess error. By doing so, they acknowledge that the lower court's decision was legally flawed, prompting the appellate court to reverse the lower court's ruling and invalidate the ordinance.