Verdicts and judgments - Jury verdicts—types and challenges

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the types of jury verdicts available in federal civil trials and the procedures for challenging those verdicts. After reading this article, you will understand the distinctions between general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts with interrogatories, as well as the standards and procedures for motions for judgment as a matter of law (JML), renewed JML, and motions challenging juror conduct or verdict consistency, enabling you to analyze these issues in MBE questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the procedures governing jury verdicts and post-verdict judgments in federal civil litigation. This includes knowing the different types of verdicts and the mechanisms available for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence or the verdict itself. You should be prepared to:

  • Distinguish between general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts with written questions.
  • Understand the requirements and standards for a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) under FRCP 50(a).
  • Understand the requirements and standards for a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) under FRCP 50(b), including the prerequisite of a prior JMOL motion.
  • Analyze the procedures and grounds for challenging inconsistent verdicts or answers to interrogatories under FRCP 49.
  • Identify grounds for challenging jury verdicts based on juror misconduct.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. In a federal civil trial, after the plaintiff has presented her case, the defendant believes the plaintiff has failed to present legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in her favor. What motion should the defendant make?
    1. Motion for Summary Judgment
    2. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
    3. Motion for a New Trial
    4. Motion to Set Aside Verdict
  2. Under FRCP 50(b), a party may file a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law only if:
    1. The jury verdict was clearly erroneous.
    2. The party made a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law before the case was submitted to the jury.
    3. New evidence has been discovered that would change the outcome.
    4. The jury engaged in misconduct during deliberations.
  3. If a jury returns a general verdict that is inconsistent with its answers to specific written interrogatories, the court may NOT:
    1. Order a new trial.
    2. Direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict.
    3. Enter judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict.
    4. Enter judgment according to the general verdict, disregarding the answers.

Introduction

Once evidence has been presented in a jury trial, the case is submitted to the jury for a verdict. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 49 allows for different types of verdicts, including general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts accompanied by answers to interrogatories. After the jury returns its verdict and judgment is entered, parties may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict through post-trial motions, primarily the Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) under FRCP 50(b). Understanding these verdict types and challenge mechanisms is essential for managing post-trial procedure.

Types of Jury Verdicts (FRCP 49)

Federal courts utilize different forms of jury verdicts to resolve factual issues.

General Verdict

This is the most common type. The jury simply declares which party wins and, if the plaintiff wins, the amount of damages. It does not typically provide specific findings of fact.

Special Verdict (FRCP 49(a))

The court requires the jury to make written findings on specific issues of fact. The jury answers the specific factual questions posed but does not return a general finding for one party or the other. Based on the jury's factual findings, the judge then applies the law and enters the appropriate judgment.

Key Term: Special Verdict A jury verdict that finds the facts specifically, leaving the court to apply the law to those facts and render judgment.

General Verdict with Written Questions (FRCP 49(b))

The court requires the jury to return a general verdict but also to answer specific written questions (interrogatories) about ultimate facts. This method allows the judge to verify that the jury's general verdict is consistent with its factual findings.

Key Term: General Verdict with Written Questions A verdict where the jury finds for a party generally but must also answer specific factual questions posed by the court.

Dealing with Inconsistencies (FRCP 49(b))

If the answers to the written questions are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict, the judge has options:

  1. Enter judgment consistent with the answers, disregarding the general verdict.
  2. Direct the jury to deliberate further.
  3. Order a new trial.

If the answers are inconsistent with each other and with the general verdict, the judge cannot enter judgment and must either direct further deliberation or order a new trial.

Challenging the Sufficiency of Evidence: Judgment as a Matter of Law (FRCP 50)

FRCP 50 provides mechanisms for a party to argue that the opposing party has failed to present legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in their favor.

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) - FRCP 50(a)

  • Timing: Can be made by a party any time before the case is submitted to the jury. Typically made by the defendant after the plaintiff rests, and by either party after both sides rest.
  • Standard: The court may grant the motion if it finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party on an issue essential to their claim or defense. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Key Term: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) A judgment entered by the court for one party and against another without submitting the case to the jury, because the evidence is legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Also known as a directed verdict.

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) - FRCP 50(b)

  • Prerequisite: A party MUST have made a JMOL motion under FRCP 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury to preserve the right to file an RJMOL motion later.
  • Timing: Must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment (or jury discharge if the issue wasn't decided by verdict).
  • Standard: Same as the standard for the initial JMOL motion (legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury). The court essentially reconsiders the earlier JMOL motion.
  • Relief: If granted, the court may:
    • Allow judgment on the verdict (if the jury returned one).
    • Order a new trial.
    • Direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law (overturning the jury verdict).

Key Term: Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) A post-verdict motion asking the court to enter judgment for the moving party, despite the jury's verdict for the opposing party, based on legal insufficiency of evidence. It requires a prior JMOL motion. Formerly known as Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV).

Worked Example 1.1

Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence. Plaintiff presents evidence showing Defendant breached a duty but provides almost no evidence linking that breach to Plaintiff's specific injury. Defendant moves for JMOL after Plaintiff rests, arguing insufficient evidence of causation. The judge denies the motion. The jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant files an RJMOL within 28 days of judgment, again arguing insufficient evidence of causation. Is the RJMOL proper?

Answer: Yes, the RJMOL is procedurally proper. Defendant made the required JMOL motion before the case went to the jury (FRCP 50(a)). This preserved the right to renew the motion post-verdict (FRCP 50(b)). The court will apply the same standard: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, could a reasonable jury find causation based on the evidence presented? If not, the RJMOL should be granted.

Other Challenges to Jury Verdicts

Juror Misconduct (FRCP 606(b))

Generally, jurors cannot testify about statements made or incidents occurring during deliberations, or about their mental processes. However, juror testimony is permitted regarding:

  1. Extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury’s attention (e.g., reading a newspaper article about the case).
  2. An outside influence improperly brought to bear on any juror (e.g., a bribe attempt).
  3. A mistake made in entering the verdict onto the verdict form.
  4. A clear statement made by a juror relying on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant.

Key Term: Juror Misconduct Improper behavior by jurors during trial or deliberations that may provide grounds for challenging the verdict, such as considering outside evidence or being subject to improper influence.

Inconsistent Verdicts

As discussed under FRCP 49(b), inconsistencies between a general verdict and answers to interrogatories provide grounds for specific judicial action (further deliberation, judgment based on answers, or new trial). Inconsistent findings within a special verdict (FRCP 49(a)) also warrant judicial intervention, typically requiring further deliberation or a new trial.

Exam Warning

Remember the strict prerequisite for an RJMOL motion under FRCP 50(b): the moving party must have moved for JMOL under FRCP 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury. Failure to make the initial JMOL motion waives the right to make the post-verdict RJMOL motion based on insufficiency of the evidence.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Jury verdicts can be general, special, or general with written questions (FRCP 49).
  • Inconsistencies between general verdicts and answers require specific judicial action (FRCP 49(b)).
  • A Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) challenges evidentiary sufficiency before jury submission (FRCP 50(a)).
  • Standard for JMOL: No legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-movant.
  • A Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) challenges evidentiary sufficiency after the verdict (FRCP 50(b)).
  • RJMOL requires a prior JMOL motion and must be filed within 28 days of judgment entry.
  • Juror testimony about deliberations is highly restricted, with exceptions for extraneous information, outside influence, clerical errors, and racial animus (FRCP 606(b)).

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Special Verdict
  • General Verdict with Written Questions
  • Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)
  • Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL)
  • Juror Misconduct
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal