The decision is made to pass the case on to a higher authority. Once again Korihor is bound and carried away, once again to be judged. This sets up the confrontation between two important figures, Alma and Korihor. How is it that Korihor is important?
Korihor is probably of little consequence in the history of the Nephites. Unlike Nehor, we have no organized movement that may be attached to Nehor. Korihor’s philosophies had some acceptance in his first city, but absolutely none in Jershon nor Gideon. Korihor’s greatest value comes in Mormon’s construction of his story.
Literarily, Korihor serves two functions. First, he serves as a contrast to the success of the mission to the Lamanites. The proximate discussion of these two “missions” allows Mormon to show the power of God in the conversion of the Lamanites, but the failure of a mirrored mission to convert the Nephites. Secondly, it allows Mormon to present two figureheads in direct contrast. Alma stands for the gospel, and Korihor for the opposite philosophy. Mormon can use this individual situation to extrapolate the situation into the more universal conflict between the gospel and all detractors. Mormon constructs a great contrast between the sons and Mosiah and Korihor, and then uses Korihor as a way to show the superiority of the Lord over those who would claim he does not exist.
Legal: The nature of the legal system is shown here to be somewhat flexible. Korihor is brought before both Alma and the Chief Judge. With the separation of civil and religious authorities, we might expect that only the Chief Judge was involved. What we see is that while there is a division between church and state, it is not a complete nor exclusive division. There is still enough of a connection between the Nephite religion and the political structures of the land of Zarahemla that it is deemed appropriate for Alma to be present at the judging of Korihor. Not only is Alma present, but the main conflict occurs between Alma and Korihor, presumably in front of the judge.
It may be that we are seeing something of the nature of the functioning of the judge, were aggrieved parties would argue their case, and present the final results to the judge for adjudication.