A new trial was ordered by the appeal court and ordered to allow previously denied discovery video into evidence. Along with requesting supplemental evidence, I also argued to acquit for the traffic violations, but the appeal opinion only said arguments for acquittal to be without merit. It didn't explain why the arguments were wrong.
The municipal judge says the new trial can only be about the the discovery video and that arguments made in the original can not be repeated because the appeal court said the arguments were without merit.
The municipal judge asked if I understood and I said no. The judge didn't explain when I tried to ask him what is allowed in a new trial. He got upset and told me to leave.
What is a new trial?
Can't I try to argue my case better in a new trial?
Does a new trial have to be limited to only new evidence?
It sounds like the officer witness from the original trial doesn't have to testify again.
What does the appeal court mean when my arguments were without merit? I thought it meant I just didn't support it well in the appeal brief, so they don't explain why the argument was wrong, but I get to argue again at the new trial.