Preface: This book discusses civil trials, and not criminal trials (whose procedure is more complex, per the author).
Source: p 86, Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2010, 2 ed) by Kenneth J. Vandevelde
The burden of proof governs fact-finding at trial.
[1.] As discussed in chapter 2, on appeal, the court will not reevaluate the evidence against the burden of proof.
[2.] Rather, the court will evaluate the evidence only against the standard of review.
For example, in a civil case, the appellate court will examine a jury verdict only to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. If so, the court of appeals will affirm the judgment of the trial court, even if the appellate court itself would not have found the burden of proof to have been met. In other words, a factual finding at trial is usually not disturbed on appeal.
I do not understand the differences between the bolded terms (in 1 and 2).
How and why can the standard of review differ from burden of proof? I know that appellate courts decide questions of law, and not of fact, unless an error of fact is exceptionally clear.
(I know that the required gravity (of such errors of fact) is defined with specific Modifiers, but I do not use them because they differ across jurisdictions.)