ESSAY QUESTIONS—ETHICS AND POLICY 82. Is it reasonable for appellate courts to not hear new evidence in an appeal? Should new available evidence be grounds for appeal? In many cases additional evidence is available by the time of the appeal. If this is the case, wouldn’t justice be best served by allowing the appellate court to consider it? And even if there is no new evidence available, should the appellate court be able to reconsider the trial evidence and impose a different verdict from that of the jury? If new evidence could support an appeal, no case would ever be final. The parties would always have to worry that the other side might find new evidence. The appellate court cannot hear new evidence because there are no juries at the appellate court level, and the evidence would likely involve factual matters. Lastly, if the appellate court could replace jury verdicts with its own fact finding, it would be usurping the role of the jury. [difficult]
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 03/28/2011 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Steinfield during the Spring '11 term at UCSC.