We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
Certain evidence was deemed admissible or relevant after an objection was made before trial. Another piece of evidence was addressed at trial, objected to and ruled to be not relevant for the same reason the other evidence was objected to, but ruled relevant. Can you appeal a conviction based on the fact that either both pieces of evidence should have been ruled relevant or neither of them should have been allowed, especially considering that the evidence ruled to be relevant affected the conviction and the evidence ruled to be not relevant could have changed the verdict?