From the criminal appellants viewpoint, it is in their interests to have as many opportunities to appeal and as many grounds to appeal as possible. The more opportunities to appeal, the greater chance that one of your appeals may turn out favourably to you. So, in the US system, you cannot appeal points of state law to federal courts, but in the Australian system you can, so you have more opportunities to appeal in Australia. Plus, AEDPA limits access to federal habeas corpus (which is a form of collateral appeal as opposed to direct appeal), whereas there is no corresponding limitation under Australian law.

How does this to relate to rights? Well, arguably one of our rights is the right to appeal adverse judicial decisions. And the Australian legal system grants more extensive rights in that area than the US one does.

And, of course judicial process is the means by which other rights are given effect, so less appeal opportunities translates, the reliability of the individual courts being equal, to less effective protection of whatever rights exist on paper.

Again, if a state law case implicates any federal issues, such as the Bill of Rights, then you can appeal to the US Supreme Court.

For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.

> For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court.

Appellate courts (at least in some systems) are allowed to reopen the facts, for example to consider new evidence not available at the time of trial - see e.g. http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introd...

> American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.

Australian state court systems have always been subject to review by higher courts. Originally by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and now the High Court of Australia has taken over that jurisdiction. I don't think it is reasonable to say that because we do federalism differently than the US, we don't do federalism at all.

It is also worth keeping in mind that there is a potential tension between states rights and individual rights. If a state is trying to limit my rights as an individual, and the federal government or courts wants to stop that, and "states rights" limit the ability of the federal government or courts to step in and protect my individual rights, then that is a case in which my individual rights are being sacrificed to protect "states rights". So, I'd say that in the matter of appeals, the US chooses to prioritise states rights over individual rights in a way in which Australia doesn't.

You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor. Suppose that a state supreme court decides to give more rights to defendants under its common law. Suppose the state supreme court finds for a defendant based on that. Allowing the prosecution to appeal that decision to the federal supreme court actually HURTS the defendant.

I'm not saying there's no federalism in Australia. I'm saying that the federalism is substantially limited by having one general common law to rule them all. And also by imposing a single approach to judicial decision making.

Also, I think you continue to misrepresent the situation. You have every right to appeal a violation of your federally-granted rights to the federal Supreme Court. It is only rights granted to you only by your state that cannot, generally, be appealed. As I said above, it also means that prosecutors cannot try to get a decision made for you, by a state court on the basis of state law, overturned by the federal courts. So it cuts both ways.

> You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor.

No denying that in the general case greater rights of appeal could work against the defendant as well as in favour of them. But in practice it all depends on how defendant-friendly the federal and individual state court systems actually are. I'm sure that for at least some US states, if the federal court system was granted Australian-style supremacy over them, the end result would be more defendant-friendly than it is now. Maybe for some other states it would be the opposite, but you have to ask which of those two situations would be the more common.