What Happens if New Evidence Emerges After a Trial Court Decision?
When new evidence emerges after a trial court decision, it usually cannot be added on appeal. Instead, the party who found it typically must ask the trial court itself to reopen the case through a motion for a new trial or relief from the judgment.
This surprises many people, since an appeal sounds like the next step. Appeals courts, however, review only the record created at trial, so evidence the trial judge never saw is generally off limits.
If you are wondering how long does an appeal takes, the timeline depends on the case and the court handling it. However, when new evidence comes to light, the more urgent concern may be the deadline for asking the trial court to reconsider its decision.
Let’s look at what options may be available when new evidence emerges after a trial.
Why an Appeal Is Usually the Wrong Place for New Evidence
An appeal asks whether the trial court made a legal error based on what was in front of it. The appeals court does not hold hearings, take testimony, or weigh fresh facts.
As a result, new evidence attached to an appeal brief is usually ignored or struck. The proper path runs back through the trial court.
Options in Civil Cases
Civil litigants have two main tools for new evidence. Which one applies depends on how much time has passed since the judgment.
Motion for a New Trial
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b), a motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered. Newly found evidence can be one reason to request it.
Motion for Relief from Judgment
After that window closes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) allows relief based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been found in time for a new trial motion, even with reasonable diligence. Under Rule 60(c)(1), this type of motion must be filed no more than one year after the judgment.
What Courts Look For
Judges do not reopen cases lightly and generally expect the evidence to meet several conditions:
- It was discovered after the trial ended
- The party could not have found it earlier through reasonable effort
- It is relevant to an important issue in the case
- It is more than repetitive or merely used to attack a witness’s credibility
- It would likely have changed the outcome
The diligence requirement often decides these motions. If the evidence was available with a reasonable search before trial, the court will usually deny relief.
New Evidence in Criminal Cases
Criminal defendants have a separate path with a longer window. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1), a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within 3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty.
Many states have their own procedures for these claims, and some allow later challenges through post-conviction relief. DNA evidence and recanted witness testimony are common examples of new evidence in criminal cases.
When an Appeal Is Already Pending
Filing an appeal usually shifts control of the case to the appeals court. That can make it harder for the trial court to act on a new evidence motion.
In federal criminal cases, Rule 33(b)(1) allows the motion to be filed while an appeal is pending, but the trial court cannot grant it until the appeals court sends the case back. In civil cases, a trial judge may indicate how it would rule, which can lead the appeals court to return the case for that purpose.
Key Takeaways
- Appeals courts generally do not consider evidence outside the trial record.
- New evidence is usually raised through a motion in the trial court.
- Federal civil new trial motions are due within 28 days of judgment.
- Civil relief based on new evidence is limited to one year after judgment.
- Federal criminal defendants have 3 years from the verdict to file.
- Courts require proof that the evidence could not have been found earlier.
- A pending appeal can affect when the trial court may grant relief.
