New Trial

1. Antevski v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 4 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 1993)
   US v. Douglas, 874 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1989)
   If verdict is based on false testimony district judge has discretion to grant injured party a new trial.
   
   
2. Blancha v. Raymark Industries, 972 F.2d 507 (3rd Cir. 1992)
   Even in the absence of timely objection, court could grant new trial if error in instructing jury resulted in miscarriage of justice.
   
   
3. Dakota Industries Inc. v. Ever Best Ltd., 28 F3d 910 (8th Cir. 1994)
   New trial is required when district court erroneously submits question of law to jury to decide.
   
   
4. Durrough v. State, (1981, Tex Crim) 620 SW.2d 134
   Defendant may be tried second time for offense when prior conviction for that same offense is set aside on appeal; where reversal grants appellant new trial, he may be tried on original indictment or on new indictment charging same offense.
   
   
5. Jackson v. Virginia, (1979) 443 US 307, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 99 S.Ct. 2781
   If state court reverses and characterizes it as based on weight of evidence or does not characterize it at all, insufficiency of verdict will create double jeopardy bar.
   
   
6. Lama v. Borras, 16 F.3d 473 (1st Cir. 1994)
   Winter v. Brenner Tank, Inc., 926 F2d 468 (5th Cir.)
   District court may order a new trial even when verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
   
   
7. Morse v. US, 270 US 151, 70 L.Ed 518, 46 S.Ct. 241 (1926)
   Overbee v. Van Waters & Rogers, 765 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1985)
   A motion for a new trial suspends the finality of a judgment.
   
   
8. Note: Based upon new evidence, a new trail may be had anytime within 2 years. A new trial based on ineffective of assistance of counsel may be had any time if your attorney failed to present evidence, known to him at the time, to the trial or sentencing court.
   
   
9. Newell Puerto Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid Inc., 20 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1994)
   EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge, 25 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1994)
   District court may grant new trial where verdict returned is against great weight of evidence.
   
   
10. TS v. Davis, 15 F.3d 1393 (7th Cir. 1994)
    Defendant is entitled to new trial if there is a "reasonable possibility" that jury's verdict has been affected by material not properly admitted as evidence.
    
    
11. US v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1992)
    If newly discovered evidence established that defendant in narcotics case had been convicted solely on uncorroborated testimony of crooked cop involved in stealing drug money. interest of justice would support new trial.
    
    
12. US v. Greer, 223 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 2000)
    Motion for a new trial must be granted if trial was not fair to the moving party.
    
    
13. US v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1984)
    US v. Hobson, 825 F.2d 364 (11th Cir. 1987)
    To justify new trial, evidence must be discovered following trial, movant must show due diligence to discover evidence, evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching, evidence must be material to issues before court and evidence must be of such nature that new trial would probably produce new result.
    
    
14. US v. Hall, 85 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 1996)
    Trial court may grant new trial based on taint of even a single juror.
    
    
15. US v. Honer, 225 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 2000)
    New trial is necessary when there is significant possibility that improperly admitted prejudicial evidence and substantial impact on verdict, viewed in light of entire trial.
    
    
16. US v. Levy - Cordero, 156 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 1998)
    New trial must be ordered whenever substantial rights are affected by error at criminal trial and the government cannot prove harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    
17. US v. Tory, 52 F.3d 207 (9th Cir. 1995)
    Cumulative effect of the errors relating to armed robbery count deprived defendant of fair trial and required new trial on armed robbery court.
    
    
18. US v. Walker, 25 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1994)
    To win new trial based on recanted testimony, defendant must show that recantation is true, that jury might have reached different result if it were not for false testimony, and that witness' testimony took defendant by surprise.

Back To Top

For questions or comments about this website contact: jcoghill2@cox.net