Is It Reasonable for Appellate Courts to Not Hear New

Essay

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?