[1] In common law systems, one feature that distinguishes a trial de novo from an appellate proceeding is that new evidence may not ordinarily be presented in an appeal (though there are rare instances when it may be allowed—usually evidence that came to light only after the trial and could not, in all diligence, have been presented in the lower court).
[citation needed] For example, a system may relegate a claim of a certain amount to a judge but preserve the right to a new trial before a jury.
[citation needed] This is in contrast to more relaxed standards of review such as "clearly erroneous" or "substantial evidence."
'"[4] Some states use a system combining aspects of traditional appeal and absolute trial de novo; for instance, in New Jersey, decisions in minor criminal and traffic cases heard in the state's municipal courts may be appealed to the Law Division, Criminal Part of the Superior Court for "trial de novo on the record," in which the Law Division makes new findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the record produced in the municipal court's trial (i.e. based on the transcript of the municipal court proceeding and any physical or documentary evidence presented to the Municipal Court), but does not hold any evidentiary hearings itself.
If the determination made by a lower body is overturned, it may be renewed de novo in the review process (this is usually before it reaches the court system).