Also known as: motions for a new trial · new trial motion
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A post-trial motion by which a party asks the court to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The motion is available after a jury or nonjury trial when the interests of justice require it or when specific grounds such as newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, or prejudicial error are shown. In civil cases the motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment. In criminal cases the filing deadline is fourteen days after the verdict or finding of guilty unless the motion rests on newly discovered evidence, in which case the deadline extends to three years.
Mustafa Mahmoud obtained a jury verdict against Meridian Motors and judgment was entered on March 1. Meridian Motors filed its motion for a new trial on March 30, citing alleged evidentiary errors. The court denied the motion because it was filed more than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment.
Matthew Martinez was convicted of fraud after a jury trial. Nearly two years later his new counsel located internal emails showing the key government witness had fabricated testimony. Martinez filed a motion for a new trial within three years of the verdict, and the court considered the motion on the merits.
After a nonjury trial Michael Miller lost on his contract claim. Within twenty-eight days he filed a motion for a new trial together with a motion under Rule 52(b) asking the court to amend its findings. The court considered both motions together and ultimately granted a new trial on the damages issue.
Melissa Mills was convicted of wire fraud. Twenty days after the verdict her counsel filed a motion for a new trial alleging improper jury instructions. The court denied the motion as untimely because it was not grounded on newly discovered evidence and therefore had to be filed within fourteen days.
Mohan Malhotra lost a bench trial on his patent claim. He filed a timely motion for a new trial. The court opened the judgment, took additional expert testimony on infringement, amended its findings, and entered a new judgment in Malhotra's favor.
Megan Moore was convicted after a jury trial. On her motion for a new trial the district court found that certain evidentiary rulings were erroneous but concluded the errors did not affect substantial rights. The court therefore denied the motion under the harmless-error standard.
In 1939 and 1940, petitioners Kotteakos, Lekacos, Regenbogen and other defendants obtained loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration by submitting applications through Simon Brown, president of the Brownie Lumber Company, that contained false statements about the purpose of the loans, property ownership, purchase prices, and financial details. Brown prepared the applications, received the loan proceeds from lending institutions, paid the sellers, and divided the difference with the defendants who had procured each application. Each petitioner or small group of defendants dealt exclusively with Brown on distinct transactions and had no knowledge of or connection to the activities of any other group. The indictment named thirty-two defendants and charged them with one conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false statements and representations to the Federal Housing Administration for the purpose of obtaining credit. Nineteen defendants were brought to trial, and the jury acquitted seven, disagreed as to four, and convicted the remaining twelve petitioners. The Government's evidence established at least eight separate and independent groups of defendants, each acting independently with Brown as the sole common link and without any agreement or communication among the groups. Brown pleaded guilty and testified at trial. No evidence showed that any defendant knew of or participated in the transactions of defendants outside his own group. The trial court instructed the jury that the indictment charged a single conspiracy, that the jury must find each defendant was a member of that conspiracy to convict, and that the acts or statements of any conspirator could be considered against all defendants once membership was established. The court did not instruct the jury that it could convict only upon finding the single conspiracy charged or that it must keep evidence of separate transactions separate. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, recognizing that the proof showed multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy alleged but concluding that the variance and instructional error were not prejudicial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the issues for the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts.
The motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment. An untimely motion deprives the court of authority to grant relief under the rule.
Supporting sources
…The principles governing ineffectiveness claims apply in federal collateral proceedings as they do on direct appeal or in motions for a new trial. And in a federal habeas challenge to a state criminal judgment, a state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to…
…and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered one Sol Blackwell. He was found guilty of the charge in the indictment. A motion for a new trial having been overruled, and the court having adjudged that the accused was guilty of the crime of murder, as charged, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by hanging. At the…
…process of law, nor deny to any person within its limits the equal protection of the laws. When the trial court overruled the
…to the submission of the case to the jury"); Burks v. United States , 437 U. S. 1, 17-18 (under federal law a post-trial
…U. S. C. § 391), which is controlling in this case and provides: “On the hearing of any appeal, certiorari, writ of error, or motion for a new trial, in any case, civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which…
The motion may be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty. If an appeal is pending the trial court may consider the motion but may not grant it until the appellate court remands the case.
Supporting sources
The motion must be filed within fourteen days after the verdict or finding of guilty. A motion filed after that period is untimely and must be denied.
Supporting sources
Yes. A party may file a Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings no later than twenty-eight days after judgment, and the motion may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.
Supporting sources
The court may open the judgment, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, and direct entry of a new judgment.
Supporting sources
The court may grant the motion if the interest of justice so requires. The standard encompasses newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, evidentiary errors, and other grounds that undermine confidence in the verdict.
Supporting sources