Opinion ID: 2630572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Modern Interpretations Involving Evidence

Text: ¶ 99 In addition to conflicting with the original intent and legislative history associated with the same position language, Chief Justice Durham's interpretation conflicts with modern cases dealing with the same position language in the context of evidentiary issues. These cases make clear that the same position language is not intended to place the parties in the same position in terms of what evidence they may use. Rather, cases applying the language clearly anticipate that parties on retrial will supplement the evidence from the first trial with additional evidence. For example, in Gospel Army v. Los Angeles , the United States Supreme Court held as follows: [U]nder California law, the Gospel Army on the second trial to which it is entitled may amend its complaint and present new facts. Such a reversal remands the case for a new trial and places the parties in the same position as if the case had never been tried .... [On retrial, the] law must be applied by the trial court to the evidence presented [at] the second trial. Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543, 547-48, 67 S.Ct. 1428, 91 L.Ed. 1662 (1947) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citation omitted). ¶ 100 Cases like Gospel Army indicate that if the same position language applies at all in the evidentiary context, it requires that the parties have the same flexibility to discover and present evidence as they did at the beginning of the first trial. See also United States v. Akers, 702 F.2d 1145, 1148 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (collecting cases demonstrating that same position and other similarly-worded requirements are intended to provide parties the same flexibility regarding evidence). Properly interpreted, rule 24(d) affirmatively permits the parties to take advantage of all the evidence available at the start of the trial. Due to the progression of time, of course, placing the parties in the same position in terms of their ability to gather evidence will permit them to rely upon evidence that may not have been available at the start of the original trial. ¶ 101 Chief Justice Durham's interpretation places the parties in a different position in terms of their ability to discover and use evidence. More specifically, by preventing further discovery of evidence, Chief Justice Durham's interpretation places the parties in a decidedly different position as compared to the start of the first trial, when the parties remained free to discover and rely upon new evidence.