Post Trial MotionsEdit
Post-trial motions occupy a critical niche in the litigation process. They are requests filed after a verdict or final ruling to correct legal errors, adjust the consequences of a decision, or prevent what would otherwise be an unjust outcome from standing. In practice, they sit between the end of trial and the start of appellate review, offering a last opportunity to fix clear mistakes without the need to relitigate the entire case. The method and standards for these motions vary by jurisdiction, but the core idea is to safeguard the integrity of the process while preserving finality and judicial economy. See Verdict and Judgment.
Supporters of a disciplined post-trial regime argue that these motions are essential checks against egregious trial errors—where the law was misapplied, essential evidence kept from the jury, or damages miscalculated—without inviting a perpetual cycle of appeals. The underlying philosophy emphasizes finality, deterrence of frivolous litigation, and the efficient use of scarce judicial resources. Critics, however, worry that too-ready access to post-trial relief can undermine the jury’s decisive role and delay important outcomes, especially in civil and criminal matters where victims and defendants have strong interests in finality. See Rule 50, Rule 59, Rule 60.
Mechanisms
Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
A central form of post-trial relief is a motion for judgment as a matter of law, often invoked under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state counterparts. A JMOL asks the court to enter a judgment in favor of a party on one or more claims because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, fails to establish a legally required element. If the court denies such a motion and a verdict remains, the party can typically renew the request as a post-verdict motion, sometimes labeled as JNOV in common usage. The standard is high: the record must show that no reasonable jury could have reached a verdict under the controlling law. See Judgment as a matter of law and Judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
New trial under Rule 59
When the integrity of a trial is questioned due to errors that could have affected the verdict—prejudicial misconduct, improper evidentiary rulings, or other reversible defects—a party may move for a new trial under Rule 59. Courts often require a showing that the error substantially prejudiced the party, or that the verdict was unsupportable as a matter of law or fact. New trials can be granted on the entire case or on specific issues, and they may be combined with requests to adjust damages or costs. See Rule 59 and New trial.
Relief from judgment under Rule 60
Rule 60 provides a separate mechanism to obtain relief from a final judgment for reasons such as fraud, newly discovered evidence, or other extraordinary circumstances that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence. It is not a substitute for ordinary appeals but a narrow safety valve when fundamental fairness has been compromised. See Relief from judgment and Rule 60.
Remittitur and additur
In civil cases, some jurisdictions allow remittitur and, less commonly, additur to address excessive or inadequate damages. Remittitur reduces a punitive or compensatory award to a level the court deems justified, sometimes in exchange for proceeding with a new trial on the damages issue. Additur, where available, would add damages when the verdict is deemed too low, often requiring the plaintiff to accept a higher award rather than face a new trial. These tools reflect a balancing act between upholding a jury’s decision and ensuring proportional, legally supportable remedies. See Remittitur and Additur.
Other post-trial motions
Beyond the major procedures, parties may seek costs, sanctions for misconduct, or other post-trial relief sanctioned by state or federal rules. Courts may also review certain clerical or procedural missteps that occurred during trial, so long as they do not disturb the substance of the verdict. See Costs (civil procedure) and Sanctions.
Controversies and policy implications
Finality versus correction of error
A core tension centers on when it is appropriate to interrupt the finality of a verdict. Proponents of strict limits on post-trial relief emphasize the need for final adjudications, efficiency, and the deterrence of endlessly relitigating the same dispute. Opponents argue that if the trial was fatally flawed, a late correction is better than a wrong outcome standing. The right to an accurate decision is weighed against the cost of delay and the risk of undermining jury legitimacy. See Appellate court and Standard of review.
Judicial restraint and the jury role
Post-trial motions test the balance between correcting legal error and reweighing evidence. A conservative posture favors corrections of clear legal mistakes, while resisting reexamination of factual findings derived from the jury. Critics of expansive post-trial relief warn that broad allowances invite judges to substitute their own judgments for those of juries, diluting the jury’s role in the verdict. See Jury and Trial.
Impact on litigation economics
The availability of post-trial relief has a direct effect on the cost and duration of disputes. On one side, these remedies can prevent wasteful remedies or harm caused by procedural flaws. On the other side, they can prolong disputes and multiply appellate activity, raising legal costs for litigants and taxpayers. In practical terms, a carefully calibrated set of standards helps ensure timely justice without inviting a flood of risky or speculative claims. See Civil procedure.
Race, bias, and the search for fairness
Controversies about fairness in the courtroom sometimes touch on how post-trial relief interacts with concerns about bias or unequal treatment. Proponents of more robust review argue that post-trial relief can address egregious trial-level errors that favored one side due to prejudice or misapplication of rules, including concerns about the handling of race in voir dire, jury selection, or evidentiary rulings. Critics within the same discourse often insist that such concerns are best addressed through evidence-based standards, not identity-based protections, and that the existing legal framework should resist politicization. In this debate, the emphasis is on abiding by the rule of law and avoiding measures that would invite subjective or brittle interpretations of fairness. If the system is to improve, the focus remains on transparent rules, predictable standards of review, and faithful application of law. See Voir dire and Jury selection.
Woke criticisms and conservative response
Some commentators argue that post-trial relief is sometimes used to signal broader ideological critiques of the legal process, suggesting that outcomes should be revisited to address perceived systemic bias. Those arguments gain traction in heated political climates, but a response grounded in legal principles emphasizes that post-trial remedies operate within established rules of procedure and standards of review. The conservative position tends to stress that improvements to the system should come from clarifying rules, better trial practices, and robust appellate review—not from broad, identity-based recalibrations of trial outcomes. In short, the mechanism exists to fix error where it is real, not to rewrite verdicts based on shifting political judgments. See Rule 59 and Appellate review.