A judge will grant a motion for a new trial when something went seriously wrong during the original proceedings and that problem likely affected the verdict. The recognized grounds are legal errors by the court, jury misconduct, newly discovered evidence, suppression of evidence by the prosecution, excessive or inadequate damages, verdicts against the weight of the evidence, and misconduct by a party or counsel. Courts set a high bar because finality matters, and even a strong motion will fail if it misses the filing deadline or raises an issue the attorney never objected to during trial.
File Within the Deadline or Lose the Motion
Nothing else matters if the motion is late. In federal civil cases, a motion for a new trial must be filed within 28 days after the court enters judgment. The same 28-day window applies when the court is considering ordering a new trial on its own.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Criminal cases run on a different clock. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years after the verdict or guilty finding. For every other ground, the deadline is 14 days after the verdict. If an appeal is already pending when new evidence surfaces, the trial court cannot grant a new trial until the appellate court sends the case back.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 33 – New Trial State courts set their own deadlines, which vary widely. Check local rules the day the verdict comes in.
Legal Errors by the Judge
Mistakes by the judge during trial are among the most common grounds. Wrong or incomplete jury instructions, incorrect rulings on what evidence the jury could see, and misapplication of the governing legal standard all qualify. Excluding key evidence that could have swung the jury, or admitting evidence that should have been kept out, gives the losing party a strong argument that the trial was fundamentally unfair.
Not every mistake earns a new trial. Courts apply harmless error analysis, asking whether the error actually influenced the result. The Supreme Court set the standard in Kotteakos v. United States: if the court cannot say with fair assurance that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, the error affected substantial rights and a new trial is warranted.3Justia. Kotteakos v. United States An error that probably made no difference is treated as harmless, and the verdict stands. Many motions die here because the moving party identifies a real mistake but cannot connect it to the outcome.
Jury Misconduct
Jurors are supposed to consider only the evidence presented in court, avoid outside discussion of the case, and do no independent research. When they break those rules, by searching the internet, communicating with outsiders about the trial, or considering evidence that was never admitted, the verdict’s legitimacy is in question.
Under Remmer v. United States, any private communication with a juror about a pending case is presumed prejudicial.4Legal Information Institute. Remmer v. United States That presumption is not automatic grounds for a new trial, but it puts a heavy burden on the opposing side to prove the contact was harmless. The court will typically hold a hearing to determine the extent and impact of the misconduct before ruling.
What Jurors Can and Cannot Testify About
Proving misconduct runs into a wall built by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). A juror cannot testify about statements made during deliberations, how any juror voted, or the mental processes behind the verdict. Courts cannot even receive a juror affidavit on those topics.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 606 – Jurors Competency as a Witness
Three narrow exceptions let a juror testify: whether outside information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, whether an outside influence was brought to bear on any juror, and whether a clerical mistake was made in entering the verdict on the form.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 606 – Jurors Competency as a Witness Those exceptions cover the realistic cases: a juror bringing in a news article, someone trying to influence a juror, or the foreperson writing the wrong number on the verdict form.
The Supreme Court added a constitutional exception in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires courts to hear evidence of racial bias in jury deliberations even though Rule 606(b) would otherwise bar it. To trigger the inquiry, the moving party must show that a juror made clear statements indicating that racial stereotypes or animus were a significant motivating factor in the vote to convict.6Supreme Court of the United States. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
Newly Discovered Evidence
Evidence that surfaces after a verdict can justify a new trial, but courts are skeptical. Every losing party wishes they had more evidence. Federal courts apply a five-part test, and the new evidence must meet all of it:
- It was discovered after trial.
- The party could not have found it earlier through reasonable diligence.
- It is material enough that it would probably produce a different verdict on retrial.
- It is not merely cumulative of what was already presented.
- It is supported by the actual witness affidavit, or the absence is explained.
Most motions fail on the materiality requirement. Judges are not looking for evidence that might have helped; they want evidence that would likely flip the result. The diligence requirement also has real teeth. If the evidence was publicly available and the attorney simply did not look hard enough, the court will not grant a second trial to make up for it.
Evidence the Prosecution Withheld
A separate ground applies in criminal cases when the prosecution withholds evidence favorable to the defense. Under Brady v. Maryland, suppressing evidence material to guilt or punishment violates due process, regardless of whether the prosecutor acted in good or bad faith.7Justia. Brady v. Maryland A Brady claim does not require the defendant to show diligence in searching for the evidence. The prosecution had it and was obligated to turn it over.
The test is whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. That does not mean proving the remaining evidence was insufficient to convict. It means the withheld evidence puts the case in a different enough light to undermine confidence in the verdict. A successful Brady claim does not get a separate harmless error review because the violation itself is treated as prejudicial.
Damages That Are Too High or Too Low
In civil cases, a verdict can be correct on liability but wrong on the money. When a jury awards damages so high they shock the conscience or so low they effectively deny compensation, the losing side can move for a new trial on the ground that the award is against the weight of the evidence. Rule 59 does not list excessive damages explicitly, but it authorizes new trials “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted” in federal court, and challenging the size of an award has been a recognized reason for centuries.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Judges often use remittitur instead of ordering a full new trial. The court gives the plaintiff a choice: accept a reduced damages figure, or go through a new trial on damages alone. A less common mechanism called additur works in the other direction to raise an inadequate award, though some courts treat it differently for constitutional reasons.
Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence
Even when no specific legal error occurred, a judge can grant a new trial if the verdict is simply against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is not the same as a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which asks the judge to override the jury entirely. A new trial on this ground says the evidence was so lopsided that no reasonable jury should have reached this conclusion, and the case deserves a fresh look with a new panel.
Courts move carefully here because the jury’s role as factfinder is central to the system. The question is not whether the judge would have decided differently, but whether letting the verdict stand would amount to a miscarriage of justice. Judges have more discretion on this ground than on most others, which also means appellate courts rarely second-guess the call.
Misconduct by Parties or Counsel
Dishonest or unethical behavior that taints the trial can also support a new trial. Examples include presenting false testimony, hiding evidence that should have been disclosed, making inflammatory arguments designed to prejudice the jury, and violating court orders during the proceedings.
The question is whether the misconduct created a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict. A single improper remark during closing argument may not be enough if the judge gave a curative instruction and the evidence was otherwise strong. A pattern of misconduct, or a single act of concealing critical evidence, can be enough. Courts weigh the severity of the conduct against the strength of the case and the real harm to the other side.
Preserve the Issue or Lose It
One of the most common reasons new trial motions fail has nothing to do with the merits. The issue was never raised during the trial. The contemporaneous objection rule requires parties to object to errors as they happen, giving the trial judge a chance to fix the problem on the spot. Silence when the judge gives a flawed instruction or admits questionable evidence can forfeit the right to complain about it later.
Not every unobjected-to error is permanently waived. In criminal cases, appellate courts can review “plain errors” that affect substantial rights even without a timely objection, but the standard is hard to meet. The error must be obvious, it must affect the outcome, and it must seriously undermine the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.8Justia. United States v. Olano Relying on plain error review is a gamble. Objecting on the record every time something goes wrong, even when the objection feels futile, is what keeps the door open.
If the motion is denied, appellate courts review the ruling for abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless the trial judge’s decision was clearly unreasonable. Build the strongest possible record in the trial court. The appeals court is unlikely to fix what was not preserved below.