Britannica Sources used in this answer

How does a trial de novo differ from an ordinary appeal?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Wood-paneled courtroom with judge's bench, American and Nevada flags, wooden chairs and tables, and a mounted animal head above the bench in the Esmeralda County courthouse, Goldfield, Nevada. — Court Judge's bench in a courtroom in Nevada, U.S.

A trial de novo differs from an ordinary appeal primarily in how the reviewing court handles the case and the evidence.

In an ordinary appeal—particularly one based on a written record—the appellate court does not hear new evidence. Instead, it reviews the proceedings from the lower court to determine if any significant legal or procedural errors occurred that warrant a reversal or modification of the judgment. The focus is typically on questions of law rather than re-evaluating the facts.1

In contrast, a trial de novo is a complete retrial of the case. The appellate court hears the evidence for a second time, makes its own fresh findings of fact, and proceeds in much the same manner as the original court. In common-law systems, this process is generally reserved for the first stage of review when the initial trial was conducted by an "inferior" court—such as a magistrate’s court—that kept no formal record of its proceedings.1

Would you like to know more about the different types of appellate review or how courts handle legal precedents?