A motion for a new trial asks the judge who presided over your case to throw out the verdict and start over. In federal civil cases, the motion must be filed within 28 days of the judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment In federal criminal cases, the defendant has 14 days under Rule 33 for most grounds, with a longer window for newly discovered evidence.2Legal Information Institute. Rule 33 – New Trial If the motion is granted, the original judgment is vacated and the case proceeds as if the first trial never happened. Those deadlines are walls that cannot be extended, so the grounds, documentation, and timing all have to be right.
Grounds in Federal Civil Cases
Rule 59 authorizes a judge to grant a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.”1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment The language is broad on purpose. Successful motions cluster around a handful of recognized categories.
Significant Legal Errors
If the judge made a wrong call on something that shaped the outcome, that can justify a do-over. The classic example is an incorrect evidentiary ruling. If damaging hearsay reached the jury when it should have been excluded, and the jury likely relied on it, the verdict is tainted. The error does not have to be dramatic, but it must be significant enough that it probably changed the result. Harmless mistakes that would not have altered the jury’s thinking do not clear the bar.
Jury Misconduct
Jurors are supposed to decide cases based solely on what they see and hear in the courtroom. Conducting independent research, visiting a location relevant to the case, communicating with outsiders about deliberations, or being exposed to media coverage that was supposed to be kept away from them can all qualify as misconduct. The party challenging the verdict has to show the misconduct actually caused prejudice. A juror Googling an irrelevant term probably will not get you a new trial. A juror Googling the defendant’s criminal history might.
Newly Discovered Evidence
Courts apply a four-part test. The evidence must be something you could not have found before trial even with reasonable effort. It cannot merely repeat or back up what was already presented. It cannot be used solely to attack a witness’s credibility. And it must be significant enough that it would likely produce a different verdict.3Legal Information Institute. After-Discovered Evidence This is where most motions on this ground fall apart. Parties frequently try to repackage material they should have found earlier, or offer something interesting that would not actually change the outcome. The standard is deliberately high because finality matters.
Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence
Sometimes a jury reaches a result that simply does not match the facts they heard. When a verdict is so clearly unsupported that it amounts to a miscarriage of justice, the judge can step in. Judges respect the jury’s role as fact-finder and will not substitute their own judgment lightly. But when the evidence overwhelmingly pointed one direction and the jury went the other, or when a damages award is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience, the court has authority to order a new trial.
Remittitur, and Why Additur Is Different
When the only real problem is an excessive damages award, federal judges can use remittitur. The judge gives the winning party a choice: accept a lower damages figure or go through a new trial.4The University of Chicago Law Review. Remittitur Review: Constitutionality and Efficiency in Liquidated and Unliquidated Damage Cases The reverse move, increasing an inadequate award (additur), is not permitted in federal court under Dimick v. Schiedt.5Legal Information Institute. Additur Some state courts allow it, but in federal cases the only remedy for an unreasonably low verdict is a full new trial on damages. If you won at trial but received too little, you cannot simply ask the judge to raise the number.
Grounds in Federal Criminal Cases
Criminal motions are governed by Rule 33, which lets a court vacate a guilty verdict and grant a new trial “if the interest of justice so requires.”2Legal Information Institute. Rule 33 – New Trial Only the defendant can bring the motion. The court cannot order a new criminal trial on its own.
The grounds overlap with civil ones in some areas, particularly jury misconduct and significant legal errors such as improper jury instructions. The “interest of justice” language gives courts room to consider a wider range of problems, including prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional violations that undermined the right to a fair trial.
Deadlines split based on the reason. A motion based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years of the verdict or finding of guilty. For any other ground, the deadline is 14 days after the verdict.2Legal Information Institute. Rule 33 – New Trial That 14-day window is brutally short, especially for complex cases where identifying trial errors takes time. If the case was tried without a jury, the court has flexibility to take new testimony and enter a new judgment rather than starting over.
Preparing and Filing the Motion
The motion identifies the case with precision: case number, judge, and the exact date the judgment was entered. The clerk’s office or the court’s online portal will have the correct format for the jurisdiction.
The substantive core is a memorandum of points and authorities. This connects the specific facts of the case to the legal standards that justify a new trial. Vague complaints about unfairness do not work. The argument needs to identify the specific error, point to the evidence showing it happened, and explain why the outcome would likely have been different without it.
Supporting documentation does the heavy lifting. For jury misconduct claims, sworn affidavits from witnesses are standard. Rule 59 requires that when the motion is based on affidavits, they be filed with the motion itself.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment For claims of legal error, relevant portions of the trial transcript pinpoint the exact moment the ruling being challenged was made. A well-written brief without supporting evidence is just an argument; a brief backed by transcripts and sworn statements gives the judge something concrete to evaluate.
Pairing With a Rule 50 Motion
A new trial motion is sometimes paired with a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), which asks the judge to decide that no reasonable jury could have ruled for the other side.6Legal Information Institute. Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling Rule 50(b) explicitly allows the two to be filed together, both within 28 days of the judgment. If the court grants judgment as a matter of law, it must also issue a conditional ruling on the new trial motion so that if the appellate court later reverses, the case does not have to come back down for another decision.
Service
Filing with the court is only half the requirement. The opposing party must receive a copy, and proof of that delivery must be filed. Most federal courts use the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which handles filing and service simultaneously when all parties have registered accounts.7United States Courts. Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) A certificate of service must accompany the filing. Without it, the court may refuse to consider the motion no matter how strong the arguments. If electronic service is not available, personal delivery or mail work, but the certificate must specify method and date.
Deadlines That Cannot Be Extended
Filing deadlines for new trial motions are among the strictest in federal procedure. In civil cases, the motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment Rule 6(b) specifically prohibits courts from extending the time for filing under Rule 59, even for good cause. Miss the window by a single day and the court lacks authority to hear the motion, regardless of merit.
In criminal cases, the deadlines are 14 days for most grounds and three years for newly discovered evidence.2Legal Information Institute. Rule 33 – New Trial If a criminal appeal is already pending when newly discovered evidence surfaces, the trial court cannot grant a new trial until the appellate court sends the case back down.
A court can order a new trial on its own initiative without any party filing a motion, as long as it acts within the same 28-day period. The court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before doing so, and it must state its reasons in the order.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment This rarely happens, but it underscores how seriously the system treats the 28-day window.
Effect on Appeals and Enforcement
Filing a timely Rule 59 motion pauses the clock on filing an appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file a notice of appeal does not start running until the court enters an order disposing of the motion. If someone files a notice of appeal before the court rules on the motion, that premature notice is not wasted. It becomes effective once the court enters its order.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4 – Appeal as of Right; When Taken The tolling only works when the Rule 59 motion was filed on time. A late motion pauses nothing.
A pending new trial motion does not automatically stop the other side from collecting on the judgment. Rule 62 provides a 30-day automatic stay of enforcement after judgment is entered, which typically covers the period during which post-trial motions are filed. After those 30 days, the winning party can begin enforcement even if the motion is still undecided. To prevent that, the moving party generally has to post a bond or other security approved by the court.9Legal Information Institute. Rule 62 – Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment For parties facing a large monetary judgment, the cost of the bond itself can be a serious consideration.
The Hearing and the Ruling
Once the motion is filed and served, the opposing party has 14 days to file opposing affidavits.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment The moving party may then file a reply. After the written submissions, the court usually schedules oral argument where both sides present their positions.
The hearing does not involve new witness testimony. The judge evaluates the written record and the attorneys’ arguments. Under Rule 59, a new trial can be granted on all issues or only on specific ones.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment If the liability determination was sound but the damages calculation was not, the court can order a new trial limited to damages alone.
The judge issues a written order with the reasoning. The timing varies from a few weeks to several months. If the court grants the motion, the original judgment is vacated and the case proceeds to a new proceeding.10Legal Information Institute. Motion for New Trial If the court denies it, the original judgment stands and the parties decide whether to appeal.
Appellate Review
Appellate courts review a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny a new trial under the abuse of discretion standard. The question is not whether the appellate judges would have reached a different result, but whether the trial court’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable options. Even when an appellate court identifies an abuse of discretion, reversal only follows if the error affected the substantial rights of the parties.
That deferential standard reinforces why the motion matters so much at the trial court level. It is the most realistic opportunity to fix problems with a verdict. By the time a case reaches the appellate court, the odds of getting relief on issues that could have been raised in a new trial motion drop considerably.