Legal Definitions - after-discovered evidence

After-discovered evidence refers to information or proof that existed at the time a legal trial or proceeding took place, but which was only found and brought to light after the trial had concluded and a verdict or judgment was rendered.

This type of evidence is often crucial because it can form the basis for requesting a new trial or challenging an existing judgment, particularly if it suggests a different outcome might have occurred. Courts carefully review requests based on after-discovered evidence, as granting a new trial is a significant step. Generally, for such a request to be successful, the new evidence must meet several strict criteria:

• It could not have been found or presented during the original trial, even if a reasonable effort was made to uncover all relevant information.
• It must be genuinely new and significant, not just repeating or slightly supporting evidence already presented.
• Its primary purpose cannot be merely to question the honesty or reliability of a witness who testified previously.
• It must be strong enough that it would likely have changed the outcome of the trial – for example, leading to a different verdict or a lighter sentence.
• The evidence itself must be legally admissible in court.

While most commonly seen in criminal cases where a defendant seeks to overturn a conviction, after-discovered evidence can also be relevant in civil lawsuits. Additionally, prosecutors have an ethical duty to disclose new, credible evidence that suggests a convicted person might be innocent.

Here are some examples illustrating after-discovered evidence:

• Criminal Case - Exonerating Witness:

  A man, Mr. Henderson, was convicted of armed robbery based primarily on eyewitness identification. Years after his conviction, a security guard from a nearby building, who had been on an extended overseas assignment during the original trial, reviews old surveillance footage from his building's exterior cameras. This footage, which was not requested or reviewed by either side during the original investigation, clearly shows a different individual, matching the description of the robber, fleeing the scene shortly after the crime occurred.

  This surveillance footage constitutes after-discovered evidence. It existed at the time of the trial but was only found later. It could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence because the security guard and the footage were unavailable. It's not cumulative, as it presents entirely new visual proof. It's not just for impeachment, but directly points to another perpetrator. Crucially, this evidence would likely lead to a different verdict, potentially exonerating Mr. Henderson.

• Civil Case - Property Dispute:

  A homeowner, Ms. Chen, lost a civil lawsuit regarding a property line dispute with her neighbor. The court ruled based on existing deeds and a recent survey. Months after the judgment, while clearing out her deceased grandfather's attic, Ms. Chen discovers an original, hand-drawn survey map from 1920, commissioned by the original developer of the neighborhood. This map clearly delineates the property boundaries in a way that significantly favors Ms. Chen's claim, and it was never officially recorded but is a legitimate historical document.

  This old survey map is after-discovered evidence. It existed when the trial took place but was unknown and unavailable to Ms. Chen or the court. It could not have been found with reasonable diligence as it was hidden in a private collection. It's not merely cumulative, as it offers a foundational, historical perspective not presented before. This evidence, if admissible, could potentially lead to a different judgment regarding the property line.

• Criminal Case - New Forensic Technology:

  Mr. Davies was convicted of arson based on expert testimony that accelerants were found at the fire scene. Years later, a new, highly advanced forensic testing method becomes available that can distinguish between naturally occurring hydrocarbons (from burnt materials) and deliberately introduced accelerants with much greater precision. Mr. Davies' legal team successfully petitions to have the original fire debris samples re-tested using this new method. The re-testing reveals that the hydrocarbons previously identified as accelerants were, in fact, naturally produced by the intense burning of specific building materials, indicating a natural cause for the fire.

  The results of the new forensic testing constitute after-discovered evidence. While the physical samples existed at the time of the trial, the *ability to definitively interpret them* in this new way did not. The new testing method could not have been utilized with reasonable diligence at the time of the original trial because it didn't exist or wasn't widely available/accepted. This evidence is not cumulative; it fundamentally reinterprets a key piece of evidence. It's not for impeachment, but directly challenges the basis of the conviction, making it highly likely to result in a different verdict.