NEW TRIAL - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

NEW TRIALAuthored

The Law Mind • 1153 words

Definition

A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact by the same court that rendered the original judgment, typically before a different jury, after a prior verdict or decision has been reached. It is not an appeal to a higher court but a do-over within the same tribunal — the case is tried again on the merits, or on a discrete portion of the merits, as if the prior proceeding either did not occur or produced a fundamentally flawed result.

New trials arise in two procedural postures: (1) as a matter of right, where statute or rule entitles a party to a new trial upon satisfying certain threshold conditions; and (2) as a matter of discretion, where the court grants relief upon motion by the dissatisfied party on grounds established by rule or common law. The discretionary form is by far the more common in modern practice.

Grounds for granting a new trial are conventionally grouped into categories:
- Jury or court irregularity (e.g., improper jury conduct, failure to follow instructions)
- Misconduct of a party or counsel
- Accident or surprise that could not have been guarded against with reasonable diligence
- Newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial
- Excessive or inadequate damages
- Insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict
- Error in law occurring at trial and properly preserved by objection

Common Confusion

New trial and appeal are frequently conflated by non-specialists, and sometimes even imprecisely used in popular reporting. They are distinct mechanisms. An appeal challenges the legal correctness of what occurred below and is heard by a higher court; a new trial is granted by the same court that presided over the original proceeding and results in a fresh evidentiary hearing. A motion for new trial is often a prerequisite to appeal — certain errors not raised in a new trial motion may be deemed waived. Additur and remittitur are damages-specific alternatives to a full new trial and should not be confused with it, though courts sometimes offer them in lieu of new trial on damages grounds.

Core Elements

For a motion for new trial to succeed, the moving party must generally demonstrate:

Timely motion. Rules of civil and criminal procedure impose strict deadlines, typically measured from entry of judgment. Untimely motions are jurisdictionally barred in many courts.

Preserved error or cognizable ground. Most grounds for new trial must have been raised at trial through timely objection. Errors not objected to at trial are generally unavailable on a new trial motion unless they constitute plain error.

Prejudice. Not every error warrants a new trial. The moving party must show that the error or irregularity was harmful — that it likely affected the outcome.

Diligence (for newly discovered evidence). A party seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show the evidence was not available at trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching but material and likely to produce a different result.

Why It Matters in Research

The procedural rules governing new trials vary sharply between civil and criminal contexts, and between federal and state practice. In federal civil practice, Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs; in criminal practice, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applies, with different time limits and grounds depending on whether the motion is based on newly discovered evidence or other grounds. Researchers working in state court materials must identify the applicable state rule or code provision, as grounds and deadlines differ considerably.

Historically, new trials were a creature of common law equity and judicial discretion; the grounds were not always formally codified. Pre-twentieth-century materials — particularly those from courts of equity or hybrid tribunals — may use the term loosely to describe any rehearing or reargument, including proceedings that modern practice would treat differently. Burrill's and Bouvier's both treat new trial as a practice-specific term requiring attention to the procedural posture of the underlying cause.

Researchers examining older American cases should be alert to the distinction between new trials granted by the trial court on its own motion (rare but historically recognized) and those granted on a party's motion. Some older authorities also discuss new trial in the context of arbitration awards reviewed by courts of law — a usage that does not map cleanly onto modern practice.

The procedural interaction between motions for new trial and preservation of appellate issues is a recurring research problem. In many jurisdictions, failure to raise an issue in a new trial motion forfeits it on appeal. This connection means that new trial doctrine is often the entry point for understanding what is and is not preserved in an appellate record.

Historical Dictionary Support

The historical dictionaries converge on the core definition: a new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact before the same court, typically before another jury. Black's draws on the California Code of Civil Procedure to provide a statutory formulation, emphasizing both the civil and criminal versions. Bouvier's, the most expansive, frames new trial as a rehearing of legal rights on disputed facts, granted on motion of the dissatisfied party upon proper cause shown — and provides substantial treatment of the grounds, including surprise, newly discovered evidence, exclusion of competent testimony, and misconduct. Burrill's adds the clarifying note that new trials are granted on grounds of either irregularity (such as want of notice or jury misconduct) or substantive dissatisfaction with the verdict, organizing the doctrine around this two-part framework.

None of the historical sources fully anticipates the modern procedural codification of new trial standards in the Federal Rules. Bouvier's and Burrill's reflect a more discretionary, common-law-inflected approach. Rapalje & Lawrence's treatment is minimal, directing readers to the entry for TRIAL rather than providing independent analysis — a gap that researchers relying on that source alone should note.

Jurisdictional Note

Federal civil and criminal practice each have their own rules governing new trial motions, with different time limits and grounds. State courts vary significantly: some follow close analogs to the Federal Rules, others retain code-based or common law frameworks with distinct standards for grounds like newly discovered evidence or excessive damages. In criminal cases, constitutional constraints (including double jeopardy principles) impose limits on when and how new trials may be granted following acquittal.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

criminal_205: Bench Trials (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
criminal_178: Right to Speedy Trial (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)

NEW TRIALmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A new trial is a re-ex- mination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury or court or by referees. Code Civil Proc. Cal. § 656. A new trial is a re-examination of the is- sue in the same court, before another jury, after a verdict has been given. Pen. Code Cal. § 1179. A new trial is a re-examination in the same court of an issue of fact, or some part or

NEW TRIALmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

- See TRIAL. NEW TRIAL, (defined). 45 Conn. 401. NEW WRIT.- A new writ for the election of a member of parliament, upon the existing representative vacating his office or dying, is issued from the office of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery under the speaker's warrant and (if the house be sitting) by its own order; but upon general election, on, the new writ is issued out of Chancery by advice of the privy council. See Bushby's Election Manual (5 edit.) 1880. a

NEW TRIALmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

In Practice. A re examination of an issue in fact before a court and a jury, which has been tried at least once before the same court: Hill. N. Tr. 1. A rehearing of the legal rights of the parties, upon disputed facts, before another jury, granted by the court on motion of the party dissatisfied with the result of the previous trial, upon a proper case being presented for the purpose; 4 Chitty, Gen. Pr. 30; Grah. & W. N. Tr. 32. It is either upon the same, or different, or additional evidence, before a new jury, and probably, but not necessarily, before s different judge. It is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court or referee: 99 Cal. 265. The origin of the practice of granting new trials is of extremely ancient date, and, consequently, involved in some obscurity. Blackstone gives the most connected and satisfactory account of it of any writer; 3 Com. 387. Courts have, in general, a discretionary power to grant or refuse new trials, ao- cording to the exigency of each particular case, upon principles of substantial justice; 1 Burr. 390. That the trial judge is not satisfied with a verdict is not binding on the court in banc, but deserves serious consideration; L. J. 55 Q. B. 403. This discretion is generally not reviewable on error; 10 Vt. 520; 14 N. H. 441: 20 Pick. 285; 10 Ga. 93; 132 U. S. 103. It should be exercised with great caution where a new trial is asked only because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; 31 W. Va. 428. Where one party moves for a new trial and the opposing party consents thereto, the court is not compelled to grant the same; 44 Kan. 144; 45 III. App. 426. An order granting a new trial operates to set aside the judgment: 76 Cal. 90. The usual grounds for a new trial may be enumerated as follows: The not giving the defendant sufficient notice of the time and place of trial, unless waived by an appearance and making a defence, will be a ground for setting aside the verdict; 3 Price 72; 1 Wend. 22. But the defendant's ignorance must not have been owing to his own negligence, and the insufficiency of the notice must have been reasonably calculated to mislead him: 2 Bibb 177; 3 B. & P. 1; 13 Tex. 516; 32 Conn. 402; 36 Ν. Η. 74. Pleadings. Failure of the complaint to state a cause of action is available on motion for a new trial: 46 Pac. Rep. (Ariz.) 74; so of one which shows the cause of action alleged to be barred: 26 S. E. Rep. (W. Va.) 431. Misconduct of parties, counsel, or wit- nesses. The use of crutches by plaintiff in going to and from the witness stand, when just before and after the trial he walked readily without them, is ground for a new trial; 42 N. Y. S. 941; but plain- tiff's hysteria while on the witness stand is not; 45 N. E. Rep. (III.) 290; nor is a controversy, between court and counsel, during the trial, not prejudicial to the defeated party; 37 S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 115; nor improper remarks made by counsel in his argument; 27 U. S. App. 663. Mistakes or omissions of officers in sum- moning and drawing jurors, when the irregularity deprives the party complain- ing of a substantial right, will entitle him to a new trial: 2 Halst. 244: 16 Ark. 87; 12 Pick. 496. Likewise, where the officer summoning the jury is nearly related to one of the parties: 10 S. & R. 334; 1 South. 364; 20 Tex. 234; 1 Dev. & B. 196: or is in- terested in the event: 5 Johns. 183: unless the objection to the officer was waived by the party: 3 Me. 215; 21 Pick. 457; or the authority of the officer be so circumscribed as to put it out of his power to select an improper jury; 7 Ala. 253; 7 Cow. 720. A verdict will be set aside for the following causes: The unauthorized interference of a party, or his attorney, or the court. in select- ing or returning jurors, unless the inter- ference can be satisfactorily explained ; 8 Humphr. 412; that a juror not regularly summoned and returned personated an- other; 77 Ga. 108; 7 Dowl. & R. 684; but not if the juror personated another through mistake, was qualified in other respects, and no injustice has been done; 12 East 229; 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 367. That a juror sat on the trial after being challenged and stood aside, unless the party complaining knew of it, and did not object; 3 Yeates 318; that a juror, was discharged without any sufficient reason, after being sworn; 1 Ohio St. 66; but not if the juror was dis- charged by mistake and with the knowl- elge and acquiescence of the party; 9 Metc. Mass 572; 5 Ired. 58; that the jury were not sworn, or that the oath was not ad- ministered in the form prescribed by law; 1 How. 497; 2 Me. 270. The disqualification of jurors, if it has not been waived, will be ground for a new trial; but a principal cause of challenge to a juror, not discovered during the trial, will not require a new trial in a criminal case, unless injustice resulted to the prisoner from the fact that such juror served; 36 W. Va. 729; that a juror was also a member of the grand ju

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In