motion for a new trial

motion for a new trial

n. a request made by the loser for the case to be tried again on the basis that there were significant legal errors in the way the trial was conducted and/or the jury or the judge sitting without a jury obviously came to an incorrect result. This motion must be made within a few days after the judgment is formally entered and is usually heard by the same judge who presided at the trial. Such a motion is seldom granted, (particularly if the judge heard the case without a jury) unless there is some very clear error which any judge would recognize. Some lawyers feel the motion helps add to the record of argument leading to an appeal of the case to an appeals court. (See: motion, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, N.O.V.)

References in periodicals archive ?
Amonoo, pro se, appeals a circuit court order denying his fourth postconviction motion for a new trial under WIS.
About a year and a half ago, this column addressed a decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals holding that an appellant was required to bring a motion for a new trial to preserve for appeal certain evidentiary issues raised in motions in limine even if the motions were heard and decided prior to trial.
For these reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial absolute or for a new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine.
Judge Robert Miller will first hear a motion for a new trial, filed by Plackowskas attorneys.
Merely filing a motion for a new trial is not enough to invoke the fundamental error analysis; the arguments raised on appeal must be the same as those raised in the motion for new trial.
Jellinek, filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that his client's trial lawyer, Leonard J.
The court held, inter alia, that a trial court, when confronted with a motion for a new trial on excessive damages must evaluate the award mirrored against the facts.
After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, the Estate file a motion for a new trial based on the improper conduct of the defense counsel, some of which was apparent from the record and some of which was not reflected in the record.
In addition, the court dismissed the defendant's motion for a new trial for ineffective counsel under the Saferian- Strickland standard because counsel's decision to test the hair and note would have produced minimal results and the defendant agreed with his counsel's strategy not to test.
Washington County Circuit Judge Rim Smith last week denied Tom Terminella's motion for a new trial in a bitter dispute won by Metropolitan National Bank of Little Rock.
He further ruled that the defence motion for a new trial be sealed, as well as seven binders of My Space documents that have been entered as evidence by the defence.
On appeal, the defendant raised eight isues, arrguing that (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a judgment n.o.v, and alternatively motion for a new trial on the survival action, (2) discovery sanctions entered by the trial court during the trial were unwarranted and prejudicial, (3) the improper appearance of judicial partiality requies a new trial, (4) errant evidentiary rulings require a new trial, (5) prejudicial and inappropriated comments by counsel for the plaintiffs during the trial and in closing argument require a new trial, (7) sanctions entered after the trial were in error Because of the number of issues, (6) cumulative error mandates a new trial, (7) sanctions entered after te trial were in error.