Also known as: retrials · new trial · second trial
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A subsequent trial of a case already tried once, ordered when a court vacates the prior judgment because the interest of justice requires it or because of errors, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds specified by rule. After a nonjury trial the court may take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.
Roberto Reyes was convicted of fraud after a jury trial. His lawyer filed a timely motion asserting that newly discovered documents showed the key witness had lied. The district court found that the interest of justice required relief and vacated the judgment, ordering a retrial at which the new evidence could be presented.
Ronald Reed obtained a jury verdict against Regal Apparel for breach of contract. Twenty-nine days after judgment Regal Apparel filed a motion for new trial claiming evidentiary errors. Because the motion missed the twenty-eight-day deadline the court lacked authority to order a retrial on any ground.
Ravi Reddy was found guilty of assault. Thirty days later his counsel moved for a new trial on the ground that the prosecutor had made an improper closing argument. The court denied the motion because it was filed more than fourteen days after the verdict and did not rest on newly discovered evidence.
Rosa Ruiz sued Rhapsody Entertainment for trademark infringement. After a bench trial the court entered judgment for the defendant. On Ruiz's motion the court reopened the judgment, took additional testimony from a design expert, amended its findings on likelihood of confusion, and directed entry of a new judgment for the plaintiff.
Renee Rogers lost a condemnation case in state court. On appeal the Supreme Court held that the jury instructions violated due process. The case was remanded for a retrial in which the jury would be properly instructed on the measure of just compensation.
The City of Chicago, acting under an 1872 Illinois statute that became part of its charter in 1875, passed an ordinance on October 9, 1880, to open and widen Rockwell Street from West 18th Street to West 19th Street by condemning parcels of land owned by individuals and parts of the right of way of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company within the city limits. On November 12, 1890, the city filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking condemnation of the property and asking that just compensation be ascertained by a jury, with the railroad company admitted as a defendant along with other interested parties. The jury awarded one dollar as just compensation to the railroad company for the parts of its right of way to be used for the street, while awarding compensation to individual owners for their parcels. The railroad moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and final judgment was entered in execution of the award. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 149 Illinois 457. After affirmance the railroad company sued out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court. The railroad had raised claims under the Fourteenth Amendment in its motion for new trial and in its assignment of errors filed in the state supreme court. The Illinois statute provided no provision for an answer by defendants in condemnation proceedings, but the railroad asserted its federal claims in the written motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
View caseRuby Rivera was convicted after a federal agent searched her home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment had been violated. On remand the district court suppressed the evidence and ordered a retrial at which the improperly obtained items could not be introduced.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseA motion grounded on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty. If an appeal is pending the district court may not grant the motion until the appellate court remands the case.
Supporting sources
The motion is untimely. Rule 59(b) imposes a strict twenty-eight-day limit with no exception on these facts, so the court lacks authority to grant a new trial on any ground.
Supporting sources
Yes. After a nonjury trial the court may open the judgment, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, and direct entry of a new judgment when justice so requires.
Supporting sources
Any such motion must be filed within fourteen days after the verdict or finding of guilty. The court may grant relief only if the interest of justice so requires.
Supporting sources
…Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 311-312; Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 36, n. 45. Since respondent may seek a new trial, we deem that considerations of effective judicial administration require us to review the evidence in the present record to determine whether it could constitutionally support a judgment…