Is It Reasonable for Federal Appellate Courts to Not Hear

question 53

Essay

Is it reasonable for federal 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?

---

Definitions:

Kidney Damage

Harm or injury to the kidneys, which can impair their ability to filter waste from the blood and regulate various bodily functions. This can result from diseases, infections, or exposure to toxins.

Antioxidants

Substances that can prevent or slow damage to cells caused by free radicals, thereby protecting the body from certain diseases.

Free Radicals

Unstable molecules with unpaired electrons that can cause damage to cells, proteins, and DNA, contributing to aging and various diseases.

Cancer

A group of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells in the body.