6. Is the court of appeals likely to consider the citizen's arguments as to the admission of evidence and jury instruction?

If the case reaches a jury, either party may move for a judgment as a matter of law, also referred to as a directed verdict, which has the effect of taking the case away from the jury and determining the outcome as a matter of law.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 50(a)(1) states that if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may resolve the issue against the party; and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party, on a claim or defense that under the controlling law can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue. The most important aspect of making this kind of motion is that the movant must make a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury. The moving party must «specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.» Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2).

There are three procedural limits on which issues are reviewable on appeal:

(i) the losing party must preserve the issue during the trial court proceeding, typically by making an objection, and must then raise the issue properly on appeal;

(ii) if the issue is one of fact, the appellate court will typically give great deference to the trial court's handling of the matter (and is much less likely to reverse than for an error of law); AND

(iii) the appeals court will not reverse where it finds that the error was «harmless.»

«Plain error» is an error found by an appellate court that affects the substantial rights of the parties. Under FRCP 51(d), a court may consider a plain error in the instructions when the claim was not preserved by proper objection if the error affects substantial rights.

C is correct. Although the citizen waived her argument for judgment as a matter of law on the illegal entry claim, the citizen may still argue that the trial court's verdict should be reversed as a result of the errors that the citizen asserts the trial court committed with respect to the admission of evidence and in the jury instructions. The appellate court has jurisdiction over these trial documented errors of law, preserved by objection, and may reverse the trial court's decision if the citizen demonstrates that the trial court's decisions did not amount to harmless error.

A is incorrect. It is incorrect to state that any assigned errors were deemed harmless because of the citizen's waiver of her motion at trial for judgment as a matter of law. Even if the citizen waived her illegal entry claim, errors of law as to the admission of evidence and jury instructions may not be harmless and the appellate court might find that the citizen is entitled to relief from judgment on those grounds.

B is incorrect. On the contrary, the appellate court does not lack jurisdiction over these alleged errors. On timely appeal from a final judgment, the court has jurisdiction over appeals in which the plaintiff properly preserved her objections, which was the case here.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. The appellate court is likely to consider these arguments, properly preserved, and the citizen should have the opportunity to show that they did NOT amount to «harmless error.» «Plain error» applies when a party does not make a timely objection to jury instructions in the proper manner, and an appellate court finds that the trial court's error affected the party's substantial rights. This is not applicable here.