Eitan Sobel v. City of Rutland, Vermont

Can an appeal court bypass our basic right to cross-examine and to confront a testimony by throwing out a testimony that if was confronted, likely would have backfired and could have changed the verdict? There are established limitations to our right to cross-examine and to confront a testimony. Is an appeal judge decision to uphold a lower court verdict a justified new power of the courts to circumvent our basic right to cross-examine and to confront a testimony that was presented at the lower court? Furthermore, can an appeal court produce an "alternate judgment" that does not rely on a key witness of the lower court, asserting that the Plaintiff "did not meet the burden of proof' while the Plaintiff was unconstitutionally denied his right to confront the key witness and lost his last and only opportunity to meet the burden of proof?