Помогите пожалуйста составить вопросы к тексту)

APPELLATE COURTS
The tribunals described are trial courts or "courts of first instance." They see the parties, hear the witnesses, receive the evidence, find the facts, apply the law, and determine the outcome.
Above them are appellate courts, that are usually collegiate bodies, consisting of several judges instead of the single one who usually presides over a trial court. The jurisdiction of the appellate courts is usually general; specialized appellate tribunals handling, for example, only criminal appeals or only civil ones are rare, although not unknown. Their functions are those of reviewing the work of trial courts and of correcting their errors.
Appellate review is not automatic. It must be sought by some party aggrieved by the judgment in the court below. For that reason, and because an appeal may be both expensive and useless, there are far fewer appeals than trials and, if successive appeals are available, far fewer second appeals than original ones. Judicial systems are organized on a hierarchical basis: at the bottom are numerous trial courts scattered throughout the nation; above them are a smaller number of first-level appellate courts, usually those organized on a regional basis; and at the apex is a single court of last resort.
There are three basic types of appellate review. The first one consists of a retrial of the case, with the appellate court hearing the evidence for the second time, making fresh findings of fact, and in general proceeding in much the same manner as the court that originally rendered the judgment. This "trial de novo" is used in common-law countries for the first stage of review but only when the trial in the first instance was conducted by an "inferior" court - one typically manned by a part-time judge or two or more such judges, empowered to try only minor cases and keeping no adequate record of its proceedings.
The second type of review is based in part on a "dossier," which is a record compiled in the court below of the evidence received and the findings made there. The reviewing court has the power to rehear the same witnesses again or to supplement their testimony by taking one additional evidence, but it need not do so, being content to rely on the record already made in reaching its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. This type of proceeding prevails generally in civil-law countries for the first stage of appellate review, even when the original trial was conducted in a superior court, staffed by professional judges, and empowered to try important or serious cases.
The third type of review is based solely on a written record of proceedings in the court or courts below. The reviewing court does not itself receive evidence directly but concentrates its effort on discovering from the record whether any errors were committed of such a serious nature as to require reversal or modification of the judgment under attack or a new trial in the court below. The emphasis is on questions of law (both procedural and substantive) rather than on those of fact.
This type of review prevails both in civil-law nations and common-law nations at the highest appellate level. It is also used in common-law nations at lower levels when the judgment of a superior court is under attack. The purpose of this type of review is not merely to assure that correct results are reached in individual cases but also to clarify and expound the law in the manner described earlier. Lower courts have little to do with the development of the law, for they ordinarily do not write or publish opinions. The highest appellate courts do, and it is their opinions that become the guidelines for future cases

нужно 10=)