This is a common occurrence in cases. However, it is something that would need to be appealed at the end of a trial. You would go to the appellate court and argue that the evidence should have been admissible and would have made a difference in the case.
Here is the citation of a case where the court overturned a decision because evidence should have been admitted but wasn't:
Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 1, Department B.
And let me copy and paste the case
FN1. DPS performed a second blood draw at 6:50 a.m.
FN2. As part of his medical treatment following the collision, the victim's BAC was tested.
FN3. Although certain statutes cited in this decision were amended after the date of Aguilera's offense, the revisions are immaterial. Thus, we cite to the current versions of these statutes.
FN4. Aguilera also presented evidence the lights on “that” part of the freeway were out at the time of the collision.
FN5. Before trial, the superior court had granted the State's motion to preclude evidence of the victim's BAC because it believed it was irrelevant. Its ruling was without prejudice to reconsidering its admissibility at trial depending on the evidence.
FN6. In State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211, 212, 848 P.2d 296, 297 (App.1992), this court affirmed the exclusion of evidence a motorcyclist had methamphetamine in his system when he was hit by the defendant's vehicle. There, the alcohol-impaired defendant “struck the victim's stationary motorcycle, which was in the center turn lane and had its rear light on.” Id. at 213, 848 P.2d at 298. Because the victim was stopped at an intersection, any effect the drugs may have had on the victim's driving was irrelevant in that particular scenario. Here, in contrast, the victim was driving the motorcycle when the accident occurred and his operation of his motorcycle-speed and condition-at the time of the collision were factors the jury could properly consider in deciding whether Aguilera recklessly caused the collision. Shumway, 137 Ariz. at 588, 672 P.2d at 932.
FN7. The State included a reference to Rule 403 in a string cite of evidentiary rules in its motion to preclude. At no point, however, in either the motion or in oral argument at trial did the State argue the BAC evidence should be precluded as unduly prejudicial.
FN8. We review the superior court's decision to give or refuse a jury instruction for abuse of discretion. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309, 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995).
FN9. The motorcycle's lights only worked if the engine was running; to run the engine the mororcycle drew fuel from either a main fuel supply or a reserve fuel supply. If the main supply ran out of gas, the operator would have to manually switch a lever to the reserve fuel supply. Photographs taken at the scene of the collision show the motorcycle was set to draw fuel from the main fuel supply. When DPS agents later tested the motorcycle's engine and power system, the lever was on the reserve setting. Aguilera's accident reconstruction expert testified, in his opinion, the motorcycle ran out of fuel, causing an engine failure that “turned out all of the lights” making the motorcycle “not visible.”
Does this still apply for evidence being admitted but ignored?
Does this still apply for evidence admitted but ignored?
Doe this still apply for evidence admitted but ignored by the judge?
Does this still apply for evidence admitted but ignored by the judge? The judge looked at the evidence and heard the presentation but disregarded it because it contradicted the evidence provided by the state (which was the point...It appeared to me that it was easier for him to disregard it than to make the effort to understand it). Thanks! Don
No, it wouldn't. If the evidence was admitted but ignored by the judge in rendering the decision, then you are going to have a much higher burden to meet. The judge's entire decision would have to be reviewed, and appellate judge's are very reluctant to overturn a trial court judge's weighing of the evidence.
Would this case be of any value: http://3dcir.blogspot.com/2006/01/hh-bia-overturned-for-ignoring.html
Not really, because this has to do with an immigration proceeding before a US agency, not a criminal case brought by a state
But it is something similar in that it would be an appeals court saying that evidence should not have been ignored and the evidence points in the opposite direction of what the verdict was. However, it is an uphill battle to get an appeals court to overrule a trial court in its weighing of the evidence.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).