Clarification, he said, would come slowly, as cases get more appellate review.

The higher trial court may also have some power of appellate review over the lower.

But the standard of appellate review is an issue that can cut in either direction.

And if the trial judge excludes them, should that decision be final or subject to appellate review.

There is no general constitutional right to appellate review, in either civil or criminal cases.

No one, they say, is being denied careful appellate review.

But it was just the second of at least three appellate reviews.

"If he does not, his holding will be subject to further appellate review and we would vigorously pursue our rights."

Certainly the Legislature did not have to provide appellate review.

Shouldn't the judge's decision be good enough to resolve the issue (subject to appellate review, of course)?