I came across a murder case where the person was acquitted and evidence came out after the trial that she was guilty but she wasn't retried because of double jeopardy. The justice system is supposed to be very careful in its judgements and make sure the decisions are backed by facts and evidence. By that nature, it is logical to conclude that there will definitely be cases where new evidence will appear that change everything in a trial. Anybody would find it incredibly stupid if someone is found innocent on a murder case where a video of the crime came out after the trial.
I read this thread about a similar question, but I find it a bit hard to justify this kind of flaw just for the sake of "termination". It's also mentioned that countries like UK and Australia are actually allowing to re-open cases in these instances. Why do other countries, like America, not allow this? Quoting Dale: "As a constitutional protection, legislative change like this is not available in the United States." Is that really true and can someone expand on this? If it is, this is a big problem in my opinion.