After a jury renders a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a federal civil case, the defendant files a motion for a new trial asserting that newly discovered evidence proves the defendant’s lack of liability. What criteria must the court evaluate to determine whether granting the motion is appropriate?
The evidence would make the jury's verdict legally defective.
The newly discovered evidence negates one of the plaintiff's key claims and could not have been discovered before trial.
The evidence could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, is material to the case, and would change the trial outcome.
The evidence is material and supports the defendant's position without consideration of whether it could have been discovered earlier.
For a court to grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, several criteria must be met: (1) the evidence could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence, (2) the evidence is material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or for impeachment, and (3) the evidence would alter the trial's outcome. The correct answer identifies these elements. Other options are incorrect because they introduce concepts inconsistent with the legal standard. For example, while materiality of the evidence is necessary, ignoring whether it could have been discovered earlier renders an argument insufficient. Similarly, focusing on making the jury's verdict 'legally defective' or negating claims improperly broadens or misstates the requirements for granting a new trial.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'reasonable diligence' mean in the context of discovering evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What qualifies as 'material' evidence in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does newly discovered evidence alter the trial's outcome?