"Your Honor, how will the court handle the evidence in this case?"
It goes back to the original court after a motion for a new trial has been filed and granted.
new evidence
The COURT doesn't decide to hear a case based on evidence, the evidence only needs to convince the Prosecutor that a crime occurred, then HE brings the case to court for prosecution.
There is no way. To win there's either lack of evidence, or little evidence. But if there is no evidence, there is case.
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.
When you say a statement that includes evidence, your lawyer will then present the evidence to the jury.
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
Judge and mocercy