Appellate courts play a crucial role in reviewing decisions made during trials, but they have strict rules when it comes to handling new evidence.
Understanding how appellate courts approach new evidence helps clarify their purpose and limitations in the legal system.
The role of appellate courts
Appellate courts do not conduct new trials or hear new evidence. Instead, they review the record of the original trial to determine if legal errors occurred. Their primary focus is on whether the trial court made a mistake that affected the outcome. Because of this, new evidence is generally not allowed during the appellate process.
Exceptions to the rule
There are rare exceptions where appellate courts might consider new evidence. If the evidence proves that a fundamental miscarriage of justice occurred, an appellate court may choose to consider it. For example, newly discovered evidence that shows the defendant’s innocence might be considered, but this is not common. The evidence must meet strict criteria, such as being unavailable during the original trial despite reasonable efforts.
How new evidence is handled
If new evidence arises after a trial, the case may need to return to the lower court for further review. The appellate court might order a remand, which sends the case back to the original trial court. The trial court can then evaluate the new evidence and decide whether it impacts the verdict. This process ensures that all new information is thoroughly reviewed at the trial level rather than by the appellate court.
The limits of appeals
Appellate courts aim to ensure that trials are fair and just, but they do not typically consider new evidence. Understanding this process highlights the importance of presenting all available evidence during the original trial.