Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
35. Is the judge permitted to take any action?
Two weeks later, while drinking coffee in a restaurant, the judge overheard two men speaking. The judge soon realized they had been jurors at the programmer's trial and is distressed to hear them agree that «the judge's jury instructions were maddeningly unclear» to virtually all the jury members.
A programmer filed a diversity action against an engineer in federal court in State A. The programmer alleged that the engineer failed to pay $115,000 due on a valid service contract. The jury returned a verdict for the programmer, which the judge immediately entered.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) set different standards in granting new trials in jury and non-jury cases. Under FRCP 59(a)(1), when there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial for which a new trial has been granted in an action at law in federal court. Under FRCP 59(a)(2), when the action was tried without a jury, a new trial may be granted for any of the reasons an equity court would have granted a rehearing.
A new trial may not be granted for harmless error. A harmless error is one that does not affect the substantial rights of the party seeking the new trial. For most types of error at the trial court level, the party injured by the error must make a timely objection in order to preserve the right to cite that error on appeal as a ground for a new trial.
The trial judge may order a new trial because of what the judge has concluded to be her own errors committed during the trial. This is especially likely to occur in jury trials if the judge believes her errors tainted the jury's verdict.
If a party, witness, or counsel conducts herself improperly, to the extent that there is a substantial risk that an unfair verdict has resulted, the trial judge may grant a new trial. More rarely, a new trial may be granted under some circumstances for jury misconduct. Jury misconduct includes subjecting themselves to outside influence and concealing a bias or prejudice during voir dire.
B is correct. Pursuant to the FRCP, a federal court is authorized to order a new trial on its own for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d).
In this case, after the judge heard the jurors say that «the judge's jury instructions were maddeningly unclear,» the judge may use this evidence of the jurors' misunderstanding of the jury instructions as a basis for ordering a new trial.
A is incorrect. Under the FRCP, the judge may properly, and without notifying any party through ex parte communications, order a new trial based on the new information regarding the jurors' misunderstanding of the instructions. Moreover, speaking with one party's counsel in an ex parte manner could be problematic based on the appearance of bias.
C is incorrect. This choice implies that the only option available is for the judge to file an appeal, which is not true. Although the judge does not have standing to file an appeal, the court may order a new trial on its own motion. The lack of standing to appeal does not affect this authority.
D is incorrect. As stated above, under the FRCP, a court may, on its own, order a new trial for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion.