Every good appellate lawyer knows that when making an appeal, they must stick to the facts from the original trial. Going outside of these facts can harm their credibility with the appellate court and could even result in sanctions. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as if new information could change the outcome of the case. Some courts allow for nonrecord evidence to be brought to their attention in certain circumstances, but it’s important to use this carefully and properly. The Florida Supreme Court and other appellate courts have the power to look at scientific information that was not presented at trial when deciding certain cases. They do this to make sure they understand the science behind the evidence and to determine if it is generally accepted by the scientific community. In some cases, the courts can even add new information to the case record if they think it will help them make a fair decision. This is not done often, but it can happen if the court believes it is necessary. Ultimately, the decision to do this depends on what the court thinks is the right thing to do. Basically, just because important facts weren’t brought up in the trial court, it doesn’t mean they can’t be considered by the appeals court. The attorney just needs to explain why these facts should be looked at, and make sure to let the court know that they weren’t brought up before. Sometimes, even the judges themselves will look for extra information outside of the official record. They might find stuff on the Internet that can help them make a decision. For example, they could check a government website to find out where a company is based, or look at a company’s website to see if they were advertising a product. Courts are starting to use information from the Internet, like Wikipedia, in their decisions. This has caused some controversy because the accuracy of information on the Internet can be questionable. Some cases have been reversed because the court relied on information not in the official record. It’s important for courts to give parties a chance to respond to information from the Internet and to only rely on the official record when making decisions. Sometimes, judges ask questions about things that aren’t officially in the case record. As a lawyer, it’s important to stick to the facts in the record and not bring up anything new unless the judge specifically asks you to. This can be frustrating, but it’s the best way to handle these situations. Sometimes, though, a judge’s refusal to consider important nonrecord facts can be a little silly. For example, in one case, a judge wouldn’t believe that a defendant was in prison even though he was sitting right there in the courtroom. Another time, a lawyer won a case because the other lawyer wouldn’t answer the judge’s question about whether their client was alive or not. So, it’s important to use common sense and wait for the judge to tell you if they want to hear about something that’s not in the official record. Amicus briefs can include nonrecord facts, but they have to be general and relevant to the legal issues in the case. They can’t be specific to the parties involved. The Supreme Court has used nonrecord facts from amicus briefs in the past, but now some briefs are becoming too biased and are causing problems for the court. If amici want their nonrecord facts to be taken seriously, they have to show that they are reliable, like record facts. And if they are challenged, they may have to be removed from the brief. Courts have to be careful when considering nonrecord facts that haven’t been tested in a trial, especially when it comes to advanced scientific or medical issues. It might not be ethical to hide important facts from the court, and parties should consider whether they would be shocked if they knew the true, nonrecord facts. It’s important to always present these issues to someone unbiased for their perspective, and ultimately the goal is for the court to reach the right decision, even if nonrecord facts are necessary to do so. This text is about the importance of sticking to the facts and information that are in the official record when presenting a case in court. It gives examples of cases where lawyers were reprimanded for trying to add extra information that wasn’t part of the original court record. It also talks about the use of amicus briefs, which are documents filed by people or groups who are not directly involved in the case but want to provide their perspective. The article discusses the potential impact of using non-legal information, such as scientific studies or internet sources, in court cases. Overall, it emphasizes the importance of sticking to the official record and legal arguments when presenting a case.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/off-the-record/
Leave a Reply