Verdicts and judgments - Jury verdicts—types and challenges

Learning Outcomes

This article examines jury verdicts and post‑verdict challenges in federal civil practice, including:

• Distinguishing general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts with written questions under FRCP 49, and understanding how each structure affects review on appeal.
• Applying the standards, timing, and strategic use of motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) and Renewed JMOL under FRCP 50 to preserve sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence issues.
• Analyzing inconsistent verdicts and interrogatory answers, selecting the proper judicial response under FRCP 49(b), and recognizing when a new trial is mandatory.
• Identifying when juror conduct may be used to impeach a verdict, when it is barred by the no‑impeachment rule, and how such issues are presented through post‑trial motions.
• Recognizing when a motion for new trial is available, how its standards differ from JMOL/RJMOL, and how Rule 59 interacts with conditional rulings on renewed JMOL.
• Explaining how Seventh Amendment constraints and FRCP 48’s requirements on jury size, unanimity, and polling limit a judge’s ability to alter or disregard a jury’s findings.
• Spotting classic MBE waiver traps, such as failing to object to inconsistent verdicts before jury discharge, omitting a timely JMOL motion, or missing the 28‑day deadline for post‑trial relief.
• Integrating these doctrines to evaluate common MBE‑style fact patterns involving verdict forms, post‑trial motions, and preservation of error in federal civil cases.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the procedures governing jury verdicts and post‑verdict judgments in federal civil litigation, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Distinguish between general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts with written questions under FRCP 49.
• 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 and know the limits imposed by the no‑impeachment rule (FRE 606(b)).
• Recognize the relationship between JMOL/RJMOL and motions for new trial when attacking a jury’s verdict.
• Be aware of basic Seventh Amendment constraints on federal judges’ power to re‑examine jury findings, with a focus on verdict and post‑trial motion practice.

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. The verdict is the jury’s formal decision on the factual issues; the court then enters a judgment, which is the official resolution of the case on the court’s docket.

Key Term: Verdict
The formal decision of a jury resolving the factual issues in a case (for example, finding for the plaintiff on negligence and awarding $200,000).

Key Term: Judgment
The court’s official entry of the outcome of the case on the docket, based on the verdict (or a post‑trial ruling). The judgment is the enforceable order that can be appealed or executed.

In federal civil cases, juries ordinarily consist of 6–12 members, and verdicts must be unanimous unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

FRCP 48 provides that:

• A civil jury must begin with at least 6 and no more than 12 members.
• A verdict must be unanimous and returned by at least 6 jurors, unless the parties stipulate to a non‑unanimous verdict or a smaller jury.
• After a verdict is returned but before the jury is discharged, any party may request that the jury be polled (each juror is asked individually whether the announced verdict is his or her verdict). If polling reveals lack of unanimity, the court may direct the jury to deliberate further or may order a new trial.

Key Term: Polling the Jury
A procedure in which, after the verdict is announced, each juror is asked individually in open court whether the announced verdict is his or her verdict, to confirm unanimity.

The trial judge decides what kind of verdict form the jury will use and controls how questions are put to the jury. This choice affects what the judge can do with the verdict, how easily errors can be identified, and how issues are preserved for appeal.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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). Parties may also attack verdicts on other grounds, such as inconsistent findings or certain kinds of juror misconduct.

Key Term: General Verdict
A verdict in which the jury simply states which party prevails (plaintiff or defendant) and, if appropriate, the amount of damages, without making specific written findings on individual factual issues.

The Seventh Amendment’s Re‑examination Clause sharply limits a federal judge’s ability to substitute her own factual findings for those of the jury.

Key Term: Seventh Amendment Re‑examination Clause
The constitutional provision that prohibits federal courts from re‑examining, in any manner other than according to the rules of the common law, any fact tried by a jury.

Because of this limitation, federal practice relies heavily on:

• Verdict forms (FRCP 49) to structure how the jury’s fact‑finding is recorded; and
• Targeted motions (JMOL, RJMOL, new trial) to challenge a verdict without impermissibly re‑trying the facts.

Understanding these verdict types and the mechanisms for challenging them is essential for analyzing Civil Procedure questions on the MBE, where subtle timing and preservation rules are frequently tested.

Types of Jury Verdicts (FRCP 49)

Federal courts utilize different forms of jury verdicts to resolve factual issues. On the MBE, you may be asked to identify which form is being used or what consequences follow from a particular verdict structure.

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.

A general verdict implies that the jury resolved all essential factual issues in a way that supports the prevailing party. For example, in a negligence action, a general verdict for the plaintiff presupposes findings of duty, breach, causation, and damages in the plaintiff’s favor, even though those findings are not written out.

Because general verdicts do not expose the jury’s specific reasoning, reviewing courts are generally reluctant to disturb them. Appellate courts apply the rule that if the verdict can be supported on any legal theory fairly presented to the jury and supported by evidence, it will be upheld. This is sometimes called the “any‑theory” rule.

This can create problems when the case was submitted on multiple theories, at least one of which was legally defective:

• If the jury returns a general verdict and one of the theories was erroneous, appellate courts often cannot tell whether the verdict rests on a valid or invalid ground.
• That risk is one reason judges sometimes use special verdicts or general verdicts with interrogatories—they expose the jury’s path and make review more precise.

From an exam standpoint, when you see a pure general verdict with no interrogatories, assume:

• The jury resolved all contested factual issues in favor of the prevailing party; and
• Review of those factual determinations is very deferential and must proceed through JMOL/RJMOL or new‑trial motions using the appropriate standards.

Also remember that general verdicts are especially common where there is a single, straightforward claim (for example, one negligence claim and one damages figure). In multi‑claim or multi‑party cases, judges are more likely to use special interrogatories to avoid opaque, potentially inconsistent outcomes.

Special Verdict (FRCP 49(a))

The court may require 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.

Procedurally, FRCP 49(a):

• Allows the judge to submit written questions about one or more factual issues.
• Requires the jury to answer each question in writing.
• Does not ask the jury to state who wins overall.

The court may:

• Submit written questions that cover all material fact issues; or
• Submit some issues to the jury and reserve others for itself.

Omitted Issues and Waiver (FRCP 49(a)(3))

If the special verdict form omits a factual issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, a party who wants that issue decided by the jury must demand its submission before the jury retires. If no demand is made:

• The court may decide the omitted issue itself; and
• If the court does not decide it explicitly, the omitted issue is deemed found in a way that is consistent with the judgment entered.

This waiver rule is a classic subtle point tested on the MBE: failing to ask the court to submit an omitted issue can forfeit the right to a jury determination on that issue. On an MBE question, if counsel notices that a damages or causation question is missing from a special verdict form but says nothing before the jury retires, assume that the judge may later decide that issue—or it will be deemed decided consistent with the judgment.

Special verdicts are particularly useful when:

• The law is complex or involves many discrete elements (for example, antitrust, complex products liability, or civil‑rights statutes).
• The court wants a clear factual record to support judgment and potential appellate review.
• The case involves multiple claims or defenses and the court wants to know exactly why a party prevailed or lost.

However, because the judge—not the jury—applies the law to the factual findings, the structure of the questions matters. If questions are poorly framed or omit a critical element, the court may have to resolve that gap itself, subject to the waiver rule, and its resolution will be constrained by the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on re‑examining jury‑found facts.

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

The court may require 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.

The interrogatories typically address the essential elements of the claims or defenses (for example, whether the defendant was negligent, whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, whether any negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, whether a product was defective). The general verdict should logically fit with the written answers.

This structure offers several advantages on exam‑type facts:

• It makes clear which factual elements the jury found for each side.
• It provides a mechanism to correct a verdict that is inconsistent with the facts as the jury found them.
• It helps isolate which legal theory supports the verdict, which matters on appeal.

It also allows the judge to act if the jury appears to misunderstand the legal consequences of its factual findings. For example, a jury might award damages even though its answers show the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault under a modified comparative‑fault statute.

Dealing with Inconsistencies (FRCP 49(b))

FRCP 49(b) gives detailed instructions for what to do when the answers and the general verdict do not line up. The hierarchy is:

• If the answers to the written questions are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict, the judge may:
  • Enter judgment consistent with the answers, disregarding the general verdict; or
  • Direct the jury to deliberate further and reconsider; or
  • Order a new trial.
• If the answers are inconsistent with each other and at least one is inconsistent with the general verdict, the judge cannot enter judgment and must either:
  • Send the jury back for further deliberations, or
  • Order a new trial.

If the answers and the general verdict can be reconciled under any reasonable view of the case, the court must attempt to reconcile them rather than set the verdict aside. This “duty to reconcile” is important on the MBE: if there is a plausible way to harmonize answers and verdict, assume the court will do so.

Key Term: Inconsistent Verdict
A verdict (or combination of general verdict and answers to interrogatories) in which the jury’s factual findings cannot logically be reconciled with each other or with the stated outcome.

Timing and Waiver

Objections to inconsistent answers or to inconsistencies between the answers and the general verdict must be raised before the jury is discharged. If a party waits until after the jury has been excused, the objection is generally waived. The rationale is practical: only a still‑empaneled jury can be sent back to resolve the inconsistency.

Key Term: Waiver (Verdict Context)
The loss of a procedural right (for example, to object to an inconsistent verdict or an omitted interrogatory) because the party failed to assert it at the time required by the rules.

On the MBE, look for fact patterns where counsel “notices” an inconsistency but remains silent until after discharge. The correct answer will almost always be that the inconsistency challenge is waived, and the original judgment stands absent extraordinary plain‑error review.

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:
The RJMOL is procedurally proper. Defendant made the required JMOL motion before the case went to the jury (FRCP 50(a)), preserving the right to renew the motion post‑verdict (FRCP 50(b)). On the merits, the court applies the same standard as for JMOL: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, could a reasonable jury find causation? If no rational jury could find causation on the thin evidence presented, RJMOL should be granted and judgment entered for Defendant. If there is some evidence (even weak) upon which a reasonable jury could rely, RJMOL must be denied, though the court could alternatively grant a new trial under Rule 59 if it concludes the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

Worked Example 1.2

In a products case, the court uses a general verdict with interrogatories. The jury returns a general verdict for Plaintiff. In its answers, the jury finds:

• Defendant’s product was defective.
• Plaintiff was 60% at fault for misusing the product.
• Under the applicable law, a plaintiff more than 50% at fault cannot recover.

Defendant immediately objects that the general verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s answers.

Answer:
The answers are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict. Under FRCP 49(b), the court may (and likely should) enter judgment based on the answers (which would bar Plaintiff’s recovery), direct the jury to deliberate further, or order a new trial. It may not simply enter judgment on the general verdict in Plaintiff’s favor and ignore the answers. Because Defendant objected before the jury was discharged, the inconsistency issue is preserved.

Worked Example 1.3

In a medical malpractice case, the court uses a special verdict form. The verdict form asks the jury about (1) negligence and (2) causation, but says nothing about damages even though there is conflicting evidence on that point. The jury finds Defendant negligent and that the negligence caused Plaintiff’s injury. The court, without consulting the parties, sets damages at $100,000 and enters judgment for Plaintiff in that amount. Neither party objected before the jury was discharged.

On appeal, Defendant argues that the damages issue should have been decided by the jury. Who is likely to prevail?

Answer:
Plaintiff is likely to prevail. Damages were a factual issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, but the special verdict form omitted them. Under FRCP 49(a), because Defendant failed to demand that the damages issue be submitted to the jury before the jury retired, the court was free to decide that issue itself. If the court had remained silent on damages, the omitted issue would be deemed found consistently with the judgment. Defendant waived any right to a jury determination on damages by not timely requesting a question on that issue.

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.

The standard for both pre‑verdict JMOL and post‑verdict RJMOL is essentially the same as for summary judgment, but applied at different stages:

• The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
• The court draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor.
• The court does not weigh credibility or resolve conflicts in evidence.
• The motion should be granted only if no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party on the issue.

Key Term: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)
A judgment entered by the court for one party and against another without submitting (or continuing to submit) 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.

These motions are important on the MBE because they:

• Preserve sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence issues for appeal.
• Are a prerequisite to RJMOL.
• Interact with motions for new trial and Seventh Amendment limitations on re‑examination of jury findings.

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

Key features of a JMOL motion:

• Timing: A party may move for JMOL at any time after the opposing party has been fully heard on an issue and before the case is submitted to the jury. Typically:

  • A defendant moves after the plaintiff rests.
  • Either party may move after all parties have rested.
  • A party can renew or supplement a JMOL motion after introducing evidence in its own case‑in‑chief.

• Scope: JMOL can be directed at:

  • An entire claim or defense; or
  • A discrete essential element (for example, causation or proof of damages).

The motion must specify:

• The judgment sought; and

• The law and facts that entitle the movant to judgment.

• 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 its claim or defense.

Because of the Seventh Amendment, a federal judge cannot grant JMOL simply because she believes the weight of the evidence favors the movant. The question is not “who should win?” but “could a reasonable jury find for the nonmovant?” If reasonable minds could differ, the case must go to the jury.

If JMOL is granted, the judge takes the case (or specified issues) away from the jury. If JMOL is denied, the case proceeds to verdict and may later be revisited via RJMOL.

Exam tip:
Watch for questions where a party fails to move for JMOL before submission to the jury yet later files RJMOL. The RJMOL must be denied because there is nothing to “renew.”

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

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, on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient. It requires a prior JMOL motion on the same issue. Formerly known as Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV).

Key features:

• Prerequisite: A party must have made a JMOL motion under FRCP 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury. Without that earlier motion:
  • The party cannot file an RJMOL.
  • The trial court cannot grant RJMOL on its own initiative.

Moreover, the RJMOL cannot raise broader grounds than those raised in the earlier JMOL; it is a renewal, not a new motion. On the MBE, if the post‑verdict motion raises a theory that was never mentioned in the 50(a) motion, that new theory is unavailable for RJMOL (although it may support a new‑trial motion).

• Timing: RJMOL must be filed no later than 28 days after:
  • The entry of judgment, or
  • The jury’s discharge, if the jury returned no verdict.

This 28‑day deadline is jurisdictional: the court cannot extend it on its own, and an untimely RJMOL must be denied even if the sufficiency argument on the merits is strong.

• Standard: Same as the standard for the initial JMOL motion (legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury). The judge again views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner.

• Relief: If RJMOL is granted, the court may:

  • Enter judgment for the moving party, overturning the jury’s verdict; and
  • Conditionally rule on any pending Rule 59 motion for new trial (granting or denying it), so that if the RJMOL ruling is reversed on appeal, the appellate court knows whether a new trial is warranted.

This conditional ruling requirement is itself an MBE testing point: if a trial judge grants RJMOL but refuses to rule on a simultaneously filed new‑trial motion, the judge has acted improperly. The correct practice is to decide both.

Worked Example 1.4

At the close of all evidence, Defendant forgets to move for JMOL. The jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff. Within 28 days, Defendant files a motion labeled “Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,” arguing that Plaintiff failed to prove causation.

Answer:
The motion must be denied as an RJMOL. FRCP 50(b) allows a “renewed” motion only if the movant made a JMOL motion before submission to the jury. Because Defendant made no 50(a) motion, there is nothing to renew, and RJMOL is unavailable. Defendant may, however, seek a new trial under Rule 59 on weight‑of‑the‑evidence or other permissible grounds, which does not require a prior JMOL motion.

Worked Example 1.5

In a products liability trial, Defendant moves for JMOL at the close of Plaintiff’s case, arguing only that Plaintiff failed to prove causation. The motion is denied. After both sides rest, Defendant does not renew the motion. The jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant then files an RJMOL arguing (1) insufficient evidence of causation and (2) that Plaintiff’s expert testimony on defect failed to satisfy the Daubert standard.

Answer:
The RJMOL is procedurally proper as to causation but not as to the expert‑defect theory. The 50(a) motion preserved only causation. Because RJMOL must be limited to grounds raised in the pre‑verdict JMOL, the court can consider the sufficiency of the evidence on causation but cannot use RJMOL to attack the admissibility of expert testimony on defect that was never raised in the 50(a) motion. The defect argument could still support a Rule 59 motion for new trial based on erroneous evidentiary rulings.

Other Challenges to Jury Verdicts

Even if the verdict is supported by enough evidence to defeat JMOL/RJMOL, parties may still attack it on other grounds.

Common grounds include:

• Juror misconduct that falls within the exceptions to the no‑impeachment rule.
• Inconsistent verdicts or inconsistent answers to interrogatories.
• Legal errors at trial (for example, erroneous jury instructions, improper admission or exclusion of evidence).
• Damages that are excessive or inadequate.
• Verdicts that are against the great weight of the evidence, even if they are supported by some evidence.

These challenges are usually brought through a Rule 59 motion for new trial, sometimes combined with JMOL/RJMOL.

Juror Misconduct and the No‑Impeachment Rule (FRE 606(b))

Generally, jurors cannot testify about what happened during deliberations or about their mental processes in reaching a verdict. This is the no‑impeachment rule: courts are reluctant to probe into jury deliberations.

Key Term: No‑Impeachment Rule
The evidentiary rule, codified in FRE 606(b), that generally bars juror testimony or affidavits to impeach a verdict by revealing statements, deliberations, or mental processes that occurred in the jury room, subject to narrow exceptions.

Jurors may not testify about:

• Statements made or incidents that occurred during deliberations.
• The effect of anything on a juror’s vote.
• A juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.

However, juror testimony or affidavits are permitted regarding limited categories:

• Extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury’s attention
  Examples:
  • A juror reading news articles about the case at home and sharing them with other jurors.
  • A juror consulting a dictionary or internet site about a legal term and reporting the definition in deliberations.
• Outside influence improperly brought to bear on any juror
  Examples:
  • Threats, bribes, or attempts at influence by parties, lawyers, or third parties.
  • A bailiff making comments about the defendant’s guilt to jurors.
• Mistake in entering the verdict on the verdict form
  Example:
  • The foreperson writes “$50,000” when the jury actually agreed on$500,000 in damages. Jurors may testify as to the agreed‑upon number so the form can be corrected.
• Racial animus in criminal cases
  The Supreme Court has recognized a narrow constitutional exception when a juror makes a clear statement indicating that racial stereotypes or animus significantly motivated the verdict in a criminal case. In that situation, the no‑impeachment rule may give way to the defendant’s right to an impartial jury. This exception is unlikely to be tested in an MBE Civil Procedure question, but it defines the outer boundary of the rule.

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, being subject to improper influence, or committing a clerical error on the verdict form.

Importantly, internal issues—such as jurors misunderstanding the law, miscalculating damages, misinterpreting the evidence, or failing to follow the judge’s instructions—are not “extraneous” and generally cannot be used to impeach a verdict. Jurors’ regrets, second thoughts, or explanations that they “didn’t mean” their verdict are not grounds for relief.

Worked Example 1.6

After a civil trial, jurors admit that during deliberations one juror looked up the defendant company’s safety record on the internet and shared the results with the others. The losing party moves for a new trial based on juror misconduct and offers juror affidavits describing these events.

Answer:
The affidavits are admissible to show that extraneous prejudicial information (internet research) was brought into the jury room. This falls within an exception to the no‑impeachment rule. If the court finds the misconduct prejudicial—because, for example, the safety‑record information was not in evidence and likely affected the verdict—it may grant a new trial.

By contrast, if jurors simply say they misunderstood the instructions or regret their decision, that is not a basis for juror testimony under FRE 606(b).

Worked Example 1.7

In a personal injury trial, the jury was instructed that damages could not exceed $500,000. During deliberations, the jurors unanimously agreed that Plaintiff should receive$300,000. Due to a clerical error, the foreperson wrote “$30,000” on the verdict form. After the jury was discharged, the judge discovered the disparity and called jurors back to testify about the amount they actually agreed on.

Answer:
Juror testimony is admissible here. FRE 606(b) expressly allows juror testimony to prove a mistake in entering the verdict on the verdict form. The court can correct the judgment to reflect the $300,000 verdict actually agreed upon. This does not invade the jury’s deliberative process; it corrects a clerical error.

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.

In addition, some inconsistencies within general verdicts (without interrogatories) can be so irreconcilable that they are deemed erroneous. For example, on the same set of facts:

• A jury finds Employer vicariously liable for Employee’s negligence but finds Employee not negligent at all.

Such a determination may require a new trial because the verdicts cannot be logically reconciled. However, courts will first attempt to harmonize apparently inconsistent determinations if any reasonable reading of the verdict form permits it—for example, if there is evidence that Employer may be directly liable for negligent supervision or negligent hiring that could independently support liability.

Key Term: Plain Error
An obvious legal error that affects substantial rights and seriously impugns the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings; an appellate court may correct such an error even without a timely objection, but only in very rare circumstances.

On the MBE, assume that failure to object to inconsistencies before jury discharge waives the argument; plain‑error review is exceptional and usually not the right answer unless the question expressly flags it.

Worked Example 1.8

In a respondeat superior case, Plaintiff sues both Driver and Employer. The jury, using a general verdict form, finds Employer liable but finds in favor of Driver on the negligence claim. Employer moves for a new trial, arguing that the verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent.

Answer:
Employer has a strong argument. Under standard agency principles, Employer’s vicarious liability normally depends on Driver’s negligence. A finding that Employer is liable but Driver is not negligent is logically inconsistent if the only asserted theory was vicarious liability. Because there are no interrogatories revealing some alternative basis (for example, Employer’s direct negligence), the court will likely grant a new trial. Courts attempt to reconcile verdicts if possible, but here reconciliation appears impossible.

Motions for New Trial (Rule 59) and Their Relationship to Verdict Challenges

Although this article focuses on FRCP 49 and 50, motions for new trial under Rule 59 often accompany RJMOL motions and are part of your MBE toolkit.

Key Term: Motion for New Trial
A post‑verdict motion asking the trial court to set aside the verdict and conduct a new trial, based on errors in the proceedings, a verdict against the clear weight of the evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, or other grounds historically recognized in federal practice.

Key points:

• Timing: A motion for new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. This deadline, like that for RJMOL, cannot be extended.

• Grounds include:

  • Prejudicial errors in admitting or excluding evidence (for example, allowing clearly inadmissible hearsay that likely affected the outcome).
  • Erroneous or misleading jury instructions (for example, misplacing the burden of proof).
  • Misconduct by jurors or parties (including extraneous information or outside influence under FRE 606(b)).
  • A verdict against the great weight of the evidence (even if there is enough evidence to survive JMOL).
  • Damages that are so excessive or inadequate as to “shock the conscience” or suggest passion or prejudice.
  • Verdicts reached by impermissible methods such as quotient verdicts (where jurors agree in advance to average their individual numbers and adopt the average regardless of further deliberation) or random devices (for example, flipping a coin).

• Relationship to JMOL/RJMOL:

  • A party may move for RJMOL and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
  • JMOL/RJMOL attacks the legal sufficiency of the evidence; a new‑trial motion can be granted even where the evidence is legally sufficient but the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence or was reached through unfair procedures.
  • If the court grants RJMOL, it should also conditionally rule on any new‑trial motion (granting or denying) in case the RJMOL ruling is reversed on appeal.

On the MBE, recognize that RJMOL requires a prior JMOL motion, while a new trial motion does not. Also note the different standards: JMOL asks “could any reasonable jury find for this party on this record?”, whereas new trial asks “does this verdict result in a miscarriage of justice or contravene the clear weight of the evidence?”

Courts also sometimes use remittitur when a jury’s damages award is excessive.

Key Term: Remittitur
A procedure in which the court offers the prevailing plaintiff a choice between accepting a reduced damages award and undergoing a new trial (usually limited to damages).

In federal court, remittitur is permitted; additur (increasing the award as a condition of avoiding a new trial) is not allowed because it violates the Seventh Amendment by increasing damages without a jury’s determination.

Worked Example 1.9

A jury returns a verdict for Plaintiff on liability and awards $10 million in compensatory damages in a modest personal injury case. The judge believes the evidence could support at most$500,000. Defendant moves for a new trial on damages. What may the court do?

Answer:
The court may grant a new trial on damages, or use remittitur: inform Plaintiff that a new trial will be ordered unless Plaintiff agrees to a reduced amount (for example, $500,000). Remittitur is constitutionally permissible in federal court because it involves the plaintiff’s consent to the reduction; additur, by contrast, would increase a defendant’s liability without a new jury and is not allowed in federal courts.

Worked Example 1.10

After trial, several jurors sign affidavits stating that they misunderstood the comparative‑fault instruction and mistakenly thought Plaintiff could recover even if more than 50% at fault. Defendant moves for a new trial based solely on these affidavits.

Answer:
The motion should be denied. Under the no‑impeachment rule of FRE 606(b), jurors may not testify about their mental processes or misunderstandings of the law during deliberations. Misunderstanding an instruction is an internal deliberative matter, not extraneous information or outside influence. The affidavits are inadmissible, and without admissible evidence of misconduct or error, there is no ground for a new trial.

Seventh Amendment and the Judge–Jury Allocation of Functions

Although the MBE will not test the historical details of the Seventh Amendment, it does test the consequences for federal trial practice:

• Right to jury trial: In federal civil cases, parties have a right to a jury trial on “suits at common law” (essentially, claims seeking legal remedies such as damages). Equitable claims (injunction, specific performance) are tried to the judge.
• Priority of jury issues: When legal and equitable claims are joined in one case and share common factual issues, the jury must decide the common factual issues first, and the judge is bound by the jury’s factual findings when ruling on the equitable claims.
• Limits on judicial re‑examination: Because of the Re‑examination Clause, federal judges may not simply substitute their own factual determinations for the jury’s. They may:
  • Set aside the verdict via JMOL only when the evidence is legally insufficient.
  • Order a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or was reached through error or unfairness.
  • Use remittitur to reduce excessive damages with plaintiff’s consent.

On the MBE, if a judge appears to “change” a jury’s factual findings without using these mechanisms—for example, by entering judgment for the other side because the judge personally believed a witness was lying—that is improper. The correct device would be JMOL (if no reasonable jury could believe the witness) or a new trial (if the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence).

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. A party in that situation must rely instead on Rule 59 (new trial) or other remedies.

Also remember:

• Objections to inconsistent verdicts or interrogatory answers must be made before the jury is discharged.
• Attacks on juror reasoning normally run into the no‑impeachment rule; focus on extraneous information, outside influence, or clerical error.
• On sufficiency questions, apply the reasonable jury standard, not your own assessment of the evidence.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Federal juries ordinarily return one of three forms of verdict: general, special, or general with written questions (FRCP 49).
• A verdict is the jury’s factual decision; a judgment is the court’s formal, enforceable entry of that decision (or a post‑trial ruling) on the docket.
• A general verdict identifies the prevailing party and, if applicable, the damages, without written factual findings; it implies all necessary elements were found for the prevailing side.
• A special verdict requires the jury to answer written fact questions; the judge then applies the law and enters judgment. Omitted issues may be decided by the judge or deemed found consistently with the judgment if no party demands their submission.
• A general verdict with written questions combines a general outcome with specific factual interrogatories, allowing the court to test the consistency of the jury’s verdict with its factual findings.
• Under FRCP 49(b), if answers to interrogatories are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may enter judgment on the answers, send the jury back for reconsideration, or order a new trial; it may not blindly follow the general verdict.
• If the answers and the general verdict are irreconcilably inconsistent, the court must either resubmit the case to the jury or order a new trial; objections to such inconsistencies must be made before the jury is discharged or they are waived.
• A Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) challenges evidentiary sufficiency before jury submission (FRCP 50(a)); the standard mirrors summary judgment but is applied at trial with evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non‑movant.
• A Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) challenges evidentiary sufficiency after the verdict (FRCP 50(b)), requires a prior JMOL on the same issue, must be filed within 28 days of judgment, and is limited to grounds raised in the pre‑verdict motion.
• Failure to move for JMOL before submission to the jury bars RJMOL but does not bar a motion for new trial under Rule 59.
• A Motion for New Trial (Rule 59) is distinct from JMOL/RJMOL; it can be granted for trial errors, juror misconduct, a verdict against the great weight of the evidence, or shocking damages awards, and does not require a prior JMOL motion.
• Remittitur allows a federal judge to condition denial of a new trial on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduced damages award; additur is not permitted in federal court because it violates the Seventh Amendment.
• Under FRE 606(b), juror testimony about deliberations is highly restricted. Jurors may testify about extraneous prejudicial information, outside influence, clerical mistakes on the verdict form, and (in criminal cases) clear statements of racial animus, but not about their internal reasoning, misunderstandings, or mental processes.
• Juror misconduct involving outside information or improper influence may justify a new trial; internal misunderstandings of the law or evidence generally may not, because they are shielded by the no‑impeachment rule.
• Some verdict inconsistencies (especially in general verdicts involving vicarious liability) can require a new trial when they cannot be reconciled under any reasonable interpretation.
• FRCP 48 governs jury size, unanimity, and polling; verdicts must ordinarily be unanimous, and any lack of unanimity revealed through polling must be addressed before the jury is discharged.
• The Seventh Amendment Re‑examination Clause limits judicial re‑examination of jury‑found facts and shapes the permissible use of JMOL, RJMOL, new trials, and remittitur in federal court.
• Strict timing and preservation rules (JMOL before submission, RJMOL and new‑trial motions within 28 days, objections to inconsistencies before jury discharge) are frequent MBE testing points.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Verdict
• Judgment
• General Verdict
• Special Verdict
• General Verdict with Written Questions
• Inconsistent Verdict
• Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)
• Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL)
• Motion for New Trial
• No‑Impeachment Rule
• Juror Misconduct
• Remittitur
• Plain Error
• Polling the Jury
• Waiver (Verdict Context)
• Seventh Amendment Re‑examination Clause