[edge919]

And here's a little lesson for the two of you, from Alabama's rules of evidence:

Satisfaction of any self-authentication method contained in Rule 902 does not guarantee genuineness. Consequently, nothing in Rule 902 is intended to preclude the offering party’s opponent from disputing authenticity. Any document or record offered under Rule 902 must satisfy other evidentiary concerns, such as the hearsay rule and the best evidence rule. See, e.g., Ala.R.Evid. 803(8) (public records exception to the hearsay rule); Ala.R.Evid. 1005 (public records exception to the best evidence rule).

link to source

[Mr Rogers]

If the court accepted what Hawaii offered as evidence, then the appeal can cover if the trial judge exceeded his authority in doing so. If it rules the trial judge exceeded his authority in allowing the evidence, they could then decide if that would have changed the outcome of the trial.

But no, a court of appeals (such as a state supreme court) will not take in new evidence. That is not what appeals courts do.

And a trial judge does have latitude in what is accepted or not, depending on a variety of factors. One would think that after a hundred cases or so, birthers would have figured out you can’t just go to court and demand to see anything you want to see...

[BigGuy22]

"And here's a little lesson for the two of you, from Alabama's rules of evidence:..."

__
And here's one for you, Joe. According to Hawaiian law §338-14.3,

"(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."

Far from being what you mistakenly call "third-party letters of verification," the letters are official state documents with all the evidentiary force of a birth certificate regarding the data they contain.

As others have pointed out frequently, your understanding of the rules of evidence is very poor.