This is part of series on Judges and the Judiciary
Post 1 Selecting Judges In America Is A Failure
Post 2 Judges Must Be Trial Lawyers First
Post 3 America Replaced Barristers With Law Office Paper Shufflers
Post 4 Every Business and Entrepreneur Needs a Trial Lawyer Eventually
Most Americans assume that a judge is a judge and that all judges perform the same job, but the legal system is far more complicated than that.
Americans spend a great deal of time debating who should become judges, but far less time asking what kind of judges should sit on appellate courts.
That is a mistake.
Trials Teach Lessons That Books Cannot
A courtroom is a demanding teacher.
Witnesses rarely testify exactly as expected.
Experts often disagree.
Evidence does not always arrive in neat packages.
Lawyers make mistakes.
Jurors react unpredictably.
Cases take unexpected turns.
A trial judge learns to manage all of those realities.
The experience cannot be acquired from law books, appellate briefs, or academic seminars.
It can only be acquired in trial courts.
That experience matters.
Trial judges manage courtrooms.
They rule on evidence.
They monitor and manage the testimony of witnesses.
They instruct juries.
They observe lawyers, litigants, fact and expert witnesses, and jurors in real time.
Trial Courts and Appellate Courts Perform Different Functions
Appellate judges do none of those things.
They review decisions made by trial judges, but can only consider the trial transcript and the exhibits accepted as evidence during the trial which become the “Record on Appeal.”
The witnesses are gone.
The jury is gone.
The courtroom is gone.
Only the record remains.
They review the Record and consider oral and written legal arguments based upon the Record..
The Written Record Is Never the Entire Story
Appellate judges review transcripts.
Transcripts record words.
They do not record hesitation.
They do not record demeanor.
They do not record uncertainty.
They do not record the countless nonverbal factors that influence witnesses, jurors, and judges.
Every experienced trial lawyer understands this limitation.
Every experienced trial judge understands it as well.
The written record is important but it is not the entire story.
Appellate Judges must Understand What Happens in Real Courtrooms
Appellate courts routinely evaluate decisions made by trial judges.
They review rulings on evidence.
They review witness issues.
They review trial procedures.
They review jury instructions.
They review countless decisions that occur in the fast-moving environment of an actual trial.
Appellate judges cannot only properly evaluate those decisions without first having served as a trial judge themselves. Nothing else provides the same perspective.
The Military Already Understands This Principle
In most effective military units, responsibility increases with experience. Command builds upon command. Experience builds upon experience.
The legal system should operate similarly.
Trial courts are the first proving ground for a Judge.
Appellate courts should be the next step offered only to judges who have already demonstrated competence as trial judges.
That is how the members of “learned” professions develop their professional skills.
The Quality of Appellate Courts Depends Upon the Quality of Trial Courts
America spends considerable time debating who should become appellate judges, but far less time asking whether those candidates have sufficient trial experience.
The quality of appellate judging depends upon understanding the realities of trial judging.
A judge who has never supervised trials lacks an important part of that understanding.
Trial court experience is an essential prerequisite to success as an appellate judge.
The Supreme Court Should Not Be the First Courtroom
No lawyer should reach the highest court in the nation and become a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States without first experiencing the realities of a trial courtroom and the responsibilities of appellate review.
Experience should build upon experience.
The quality of justice depends upon the quality of judges.
The quality of judges depends upon the experience they bring to the bench.
Unfortunately, modern judicial selection too often rewards political loyalty instead of courtroom experience.
The consequences become most visible at the highest levels of the American judiciary.
Why Appellate Judges Must First Serve as Trial Judges
June 10, 2026 | Policy Analysis
This is part of series on Judges and the Judiciary
Post 1 Selecting Judges In America Is A Failure
Post 2 Judges Must Be Trial Lawyers First
Post 3 America Replaced Barristers With Law Office Paper Shufflers
Post 4 Every Business and Entrepreneur Needs a Trial Lawyer Eventually
Most Americans assume that a judge is a judge and that all judges perform the same job, but the legal system is far more complicated than that.
Americans spend a great deal of time debating who should become judges, but far less time asking what kind of judges should sit on appellate courts.
That is a mistake.
Trials Teach Lessons That Books Cannot
A courtroom is a demanding teacher.
Witnesses rarely testify exactly as expected.
Experts often disagree.
Evidence does not always arrive in neat packages.
Lawyers make mistakes.
Jurors react unpredictably.
Cases take unexpected turns.
A trial judge learns to manage all of those realities.
The experience cannot be acquired from law books, appellate briefs, or academic seminars.
It can only be acquired in trial courts.
That experience matters.
Trial judges manage courtrooms.
They rule on evidence.
They monitor and manage the testimony of witnesses.
They instruct juries.
They observe lawyers, litigants, fact and expert witnesses, and jurors in real time.
Trial Courts and Appellate Courts Perform Different Functions
Appellate judges do none of those things.
They review decisions made by trial judges, but can only consider the trial transcript and the exhibits accepted as evidence during the trial which become the “Record on Appeal.”
The witnesses are gone.
The jury is gone.
The courtroom is gone.
Only the record remains.
They review the Record and consider oral and written legal arguments based upon the Record..
The Written Record Is Never the Entire Story
Appellate judges review transcripts.
Transcripts record words.
They do not record hesitation.
They do not record demeanor.
They do not record uncertainty.
They do not record the countless nonverbal factors that influence witnesses, jurors, and judges.
Every experienced trial lawyer understands this limitation.
Every experienced trial judge understands it as well.
The written record is important but it is not the entire story.
Appellate Judges must Understand What Happens in Real Courtrooms
Appellate courts routinely evaluate decisions made by trial judges.
They review rulings on evidence.
They review witness issues.
They review trial procedures.
They review jury instructions.
They review countless decisions that occur in the fast-moving environment of an actual trial.
Appellate judges cannot only properly evaluate those decisions without first having served as a trial judge themselves. Nothing else provides the same perspective.
The Military Already Understands This Principle
In most effective military units, responsibility increases with experience. Command builds upon command. Experience builds upon experience.
The legal system should operate similarly.
Trial courts are the first proving ground for a Judge.
Appellate courts should be the next step offered only to judges who have already demonstrated competence as trial judges.
That is how the members of “learned” professions develop their professional skills.
The Quality of Appellate Courts Depends Upon the Quality of Trial Courts
America spends considerable time debating who should become appellate judges, but far less time asking whether those candidates have sufficient trial experience.
The quality of appellate judging depends upon understanding the realities of trial judging.
A judge who has never supervised trials lacks an important part of that understanding.
Trial court experience is an essential prerequisite to success as an appellate judge.
The Supreme Court Should Not Be the First Courtroom
No lawyer should reach the highest court in the nation and become a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States without first experiencing the realities of a trial courtroom and the responsibilities of appellate review.
Experience should build upon experience.
The quality of justice depends upon the quality of judges.
The quality of judges depends upon the experience they bring to the bench.
Unfortunately, modern judicial selection too often rewards political loyalty instead of courtroom experience.
The consequences become most visible at the highest levels of the American judiciary.