It goes back to the original court after a motion for a new trial has been filed and granted.
NO! Double Jeopardy prevents this from happening... if new evidence is found that could be used to appeal the case to a different court, also you could just charge the person with a different offense
No, double jeopardy does not apply if new evidence is found in a criminal case. Double jeopardy protects individuals from being tried for the same crime twice based on the same evidence, but new evidence can lead to a new trial.
new evidence
When an appellate court remands a case, it means that the court sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings or a new trial. This could be due to errors in the original trial or because the appellate court believes that more evidence or legal analysis is needed.
A judge has final say on what is or is not admissable in their court. The only recourse if the evidence was refused is to file for an appeal and have the appeals court see if his/her refusal of the evidence was justified. If they find in favor of the judge, you're out of luck. If on the other hand the appeals court decides the evidence should be admissable, the case will most likely be retried with the new evidence presented.
Appellate courts consider legal arguments, evidence presented in the trial court, and whether the trial court made any errors in applying the law. They do not typically re-examine the facts of the case or hear new evidence.
Higher courts will only review the case for "Points of error" no new evidence or merits of the case will be considered. In order for a re trial of the facts to be made, a new trial has to be granted by the original court. Whereas if new evidence is made, such as a DNA test that proves innocence, a request for as new trial would be made in the first court of conviction. Higher courts only examine the procedure of the lower court.
An appeals court will never review new evidence in it's cases
No, an appellate court may not hear new evidence. The power of the appellate court is strictly to review the record of the trial court to determine whether any errors that would affect the outcome of the case were committed. If the appellate court felt that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court judgement, it will reverse the judgment rather than call for new evidence. If the appellate court feels that evidence was improperly excluded from the trial, it could reverse the trial court decision and remand it for a retrial with a direction that the new evidence be admitted on rehearing. IN either event the appellate will not act as a trial court and hear new evidence.
Have your attorney file to have the case re-opened, on the grounds of the apperance of new evidence. Or failing that, have him/her appeal the case to the Applelate Court.
File a motion to re-open the case based on newly discovered evidence under the appropriate court rule.
when the appelate court has vacated the decision, but lacks sufficient facts to enter a judgment, thus remanding it to the trial court to enter a new judgment In the UK a remand hearing takes place to decide if an individule should be 'remanded' in custody until such time as the prosecution are ready to proceed with the case (remanded in custody means to be held in a prison without a conviction whilst awaiting trial before Magistrates or a Crown Court.)