Legal Definitions - motion for a new trial

A motion for a new trial is a formal request made to the court by the party who lost a civil or criminal case, asking for the entire trial to be conducted again. This request is typically filed shortly after the original trial's judgment is officially entered.

The party making the motion argues that significant legal errors occurred during the trial proceedings, or that the jury's verdict (or the judge's decision, in a non-jury trial) was clearly incorrect and not supported by the evidence. While often filed to preserve issues for a potential appeal, these motions are rarely granted unless there is a clear and undeniable legal mistake or a profound miscarriage of justice. The same judge who presided over the original trial usually reviews the motion.

Here are some examples of situations where a motion for a new trial might be filed:

• Jury Misconduct:

  Example: During a high-stakes civil lawsuit involving a construction defect, the losing party discovers after the verdict that one of the jurors had conducted independent research online about the specific building materials in question, sharing their findings with other jurors during deliberations. This was contrary to the judge's instructions to only consider evidence presented in court.

  Explanation: The losing party would file a motion for a new trial, arguing that the juror's unauthorized research and sharing of external information constituted significant misconduct. This misconduct potentially influenced the jury's decision, creating an unfair trial process and violating the legal requirement that jurors base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.

• Newly Discovered Critical Evidence:

  Example: In a criminal trial, a defendant is convicted of theft. A week after the conviction, security camera footage from a nearby business, previously thought to be corrupted, is successfully recovered. This footage clearly shows another individual committing the theft at the exact time and location, exonerating the convicted defendant.

  Explanation: The defendant's legal team would file a motion for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence. They would argue that this footage is so compelling and directly relevant that it would likely have led to a different outcome if it had been available and presented during the original trial. The motion asserts that the original verdict is now clearly incorrect in light of this new, crucial information.

• Judicial Error in Jury Instructions:

  Example: In a personal injury case, the judge mistakenly provided the jury with an incorrect legal standard for determining negligence. For instance, instead of instructing them to consider what a "reasonable person" would do, the judge instructed them to consider what a "perfectly cautious person" would do, which is a much higher and incorrect standard under the law. The jury then found the defendant negligent based on this flawed instruction.

  Explanation: The defendant, having lost the case, would file a motion for a new trial. The argument would be that the judge's erroneous instruction on a fundamental legal principle directly misled the jury, causing them to apply the wrong legal test to the facts. This significant legal error in the trial's conduct likely led to an incorrect verdict, justifying a new trial where the jury can be properly instructed.