|
The main reason is that no court, other than the trial court, can try an issue of fact.
One the facts are in and decided upon, the only things appealable are questions of procedural error--and only if 'preserved' (objected to on the record).
New facts of evidence are not allowable into evidence on appeal. Although sometimes we hear about cases being reopened and such, it's entirely discretionary without legal standing.
But I'd point to the reason Rekna did for why it isn't done at the trial level.
I guess I should also point out that, as much as it pains me to admit this, by the time someone comes to trial he or she is pretty much guilty.
You just plucked one person out of 2 million incarcerated individuals.
I'm of the persuasion that 1 person is too many even if it means X amount (haven't determined it yet, maybe to be hashed out in philo board) of guilty go free.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|