Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz
It's a disappointing decision by that judge.
Having looked over the new evidence, it is new and it is evidence.
I already knew it's difficult to get convictions overturned, so I'm not shocked.
But it's not over yet.
New evidence is defined as evidence that wouldn't be available during the trial or initial appeal. none of this qualifies.
Whether or not it is evidence that could change the outcome of the initial trial I guess we will just agree to disagree but considering there was a substantial arguments that tried to call into question the bullet and the hood latch, and considering those two pieces of evidence were small in comparison to the others IE: Rav 4, avery's blood, human remains, bonfire etc.. I will respectfully tell you I think you're wrong.
But it has to be both new and evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial, so even if it could do so with the latter requirement it isn't "new".