How does appellate jurisdiction differ from original jurisdiction?

Appellate jurisdiction is fundamentally concerned with reviewing decisions made by lower courts rather than hearing cases for the first time. When a court exercises appellate jurisdiction, it assesses whether the law was applied correctly and whether legal procedures were followed in past rulings. This review involves examining the legal arguments, records of the prior case, and any findings of law.

In contrast, original jurisdiction is where a court has the authority to hear a case first, meaning it evaluates the facts and evidence, and makes determinations during the initial proceedings. For instance, trial courts typically have original jurisdiction because they hear cases directly, decide on the facts, and witness testimonies.

The other options do not accurately reflect the distinctions between appellate and original jurisdiction. Evidence gathering is primarily associated with original jurisdiction, as appellate jurisdictions usually do not involve new evidence. Appellate courts do not exclusively deal with constitutional matters; they can review a wide range of issues that arise from lower court decisions. Finally, appellate jurisdiction does not allow for jury trials, which are a feature of original jurisdiction in trial courts. Thus, the key distinguishing factor of appellate jurisdiction is its role in reviewing prior decisions rather than adjudicating cases from the outset.