|
|
|
|
|
|
by downandout
4120 days ago
|
|
|
>" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a basis for the motion. Were this not possible, all of those people you hear about that are freed based on new DNA evidence, witnesses that admit to lying after trial, etc. would simply rot in prison. In fact, new evidence is one of the most common reasons for requesting a new trial. |
|
|
I must have worded it poorly because you are confusing two different points that I made. The first point was:
Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.
Hopefully you don't find fault with that statement.
The second point I was making was in response to rayiner stating that arguments can be waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. That is not directly applicable here because the argument in the post-trial motion is based on supposedly new evidence which is not applicable to an appeal.
Regardless, their client would have had a better chance if they made the argument in trial than in a post-trial motion.