Imagine the plaintiff in a lawsuit is a customer who sustained injuries after slipping on a wet floor at a grocery store. Claiming the store’s negligence in maintaining the safety of its premises is to blame, he proceeds to sue the store.
The case proceeds to trial, where the plaintiff’s legal team presents evidence to demonstrate the store’s signage was insufficient in warning customers about the wet floor. It also presents evidence to demonstrate the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries.
When it’s the defense’s turn to present evidence, it challenges the plaintiff’s claim by playing security footage from the store on the day of the incident. The footage clearly shows that, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the store had placed multiple signs warning customers of the water, and that right before the incident, the plaintiff had been looking down at his phone instead of at the floor in front of him. This resulted in him missing the store’s signage and slipping. The defense argues that, even if the plaintiff’s claim that the store’s signage wasn’t obvious enough were true, the plaintiff would have missed it since his attention had been elsewhere.
The defense makes a motion for directed verdict, asking the court to rule in its client’s favor without sending the case to the jury for deliberation. It argues that no reasonable jury could rule differently, since the security footage clearly demonstrates that it was the plaintiff’s own negligence, not the store’s, that caused his fall, and that the store had met its obligation to exercise ordinary care to prevent harm to its customers.
In this motion for directed verdict example, it’s possible the court would grant the defendant a directed verdict. In civil cases, plaintiffs are required to prove their claims with a preponderance of evidence. In other words, for the plaintiff to win, the evidence must demonstrate the plaintiff’s claims are more likely than not to be true and that those claims give rise to liability. In this example, if the judge found it was more than likely the plaintiff’s negligence caused his damages and that no reasonable jury could find otherwise, it would be appropriate for the court to grant the defense’s motion.
By granting the defense’s motion for directed verdict, the court will have simplified the trial process, eliminating not only the need for jury deliberation but also the likelihood of the jury reaching an adverse verdict as well.
Many people view the jury as central to determining the outcome of a trial. While a motion for directed verdict may seem like it undermines the jury’s role, its true purpose is to eliminate unnecessary steps and reach a resolution more quickly. The jury’s job is to assess disputed facts and determine what likely happened. However, if the material facts of a lawsuit are already established and undisputed, it would be redundant for the jury to conduct such an analysis.
Though it may be disappointing for a jury that’s sat through a lengthy trial to lose the opportunity to deliberate, the court must prioritize efficiency in resolving cases. When a motion for directed verdict is properly made, it is one of the most efficient legal tools litigators have in their toolboxes.
If you have questions about how to leverage this motion or other legal strategies to your advantage, Keystone Law Group can help. Contact us for a consultation.
Motion for Directed Verdict: Definition
A motion for directed verdict asks the court to rule in favor of the moving party without sending the case to the jury. This court motion is usually made because the opposing party has failed to provide sufficient evidence during trial to support their claims or defenses.
When Can a Motion for Directed Verdict Be Made?
According to California Code of Civil Procedure section 630(a), unless the court specifies an earlier time for making the motion, a motion for directed verdict can typically be made “after all parties have completed the presentation of all of their evidence.”
Put another way, it is most common for directed verdict motions to be made after both parties rest their cases but prior to jury deliberation. If the winner of a lawsuit is evident after only the plaintiff has rested their case, it’s also possible for a directed verdict motion to be made at that time.
Who Can Make a Motion for Directed Verdict?
In theory and when applicable, a directed verdict motion could be beneficial to a plaintiff or defendant, but is this trial motion available to both parties?
Can Plaintiffs Make a Directed Verdict Motion?
Yes, plaintiffs can move for a directed verdict if they believe they’ve presented sufficient evidence to back up their claims, and that no evidence the defense has presented or could present would sway the outcome.
Let’s return to the motion for directed verdict example involving the customer who sued the grocery store. Imagine the circumstances surrounding the incident were different. Namely, the plaintiff had not been looking down at his phone, and the store had no signage warning customers about the wet floor. Because California Civil Code section 1714 stipulates that any person or entity that fails to exercise ordinary care to maintain their property could be held liable for injuries incurred as a result of this failure, the plaintiff’s case seems strong. The store had not only failed to exercise ordinary care, but it had failed to exercise any care at all, demonstrated by its lack of signage.
In this example, a motion for directed verdict might be appropriate for the plaintiff’s legal team to make. By using the store’s security footage from the day of the incident to show there was no signage warning customers about the wet floor anywhere near the location of the incident, the plaintiff effectively proved the store’s negligence was more likely than not to blame for his injuries.
Can Defendants Make a Directed Verdict Motion?
Yes, defendants can move for a directed verdict if they believe the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to back up their claims.
In the motion for directed verdict example from the introduction, the security footage was the defendant’s smoking gun, so to speak. After seeing it, no reasonable jury could have ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, as it showed the plaintiff was more likely than not responsible for their own injuries.
If the defense were to make a motion for directed verdict in this case and the judge were to grant it, they would be justified in their decision.
Why Can a Motion for Directed Verdict Be Made?
Making a motion for directed verdict is appropriate when one party believes the other party can’t win with the evidence they’ve presented, and they want to avoid the possibility of the jury making an error when issuing its verdict.
If granted, motions for directed verdicts remove the jury from the decision-making process. While this might be disconcerting for the jurors or even the opposing party — who may worry that a judge ruling instead of a jury could influence the verdict — the goal of a directed verdict isn’t to alter the outcome of a lawsuit, but to fast-track a lawsuit when the outcome is obvious.
Keep in mind that the court doesn’t typically take the decision to bypass the jury lightly. A judge will only grant a directed verdict when the evidence, or lack thereof, overwhelmingly supports a favorable verdict for the moving party.
In the sections ahead, we’ll explore the reasons directed verdict motions are made. Understanding these reasons can help you avoid pitfalls in lawsuits.
Insufficient Claims or Defenses
A plaintiff’s insufficient claims or defendant’s insufficient defenses could result in a directed verdict at trial.
Civil lawsuits are initiated by a plaintiff filing a complaint. Complaints are legal documents that outline a plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant, the material facts of the case, and the relief being sought. A legally insufficient claim is a claim made on invalid grounds.
Suppose a decedent’s trust leaves everything to his surviving spouse. In response, his sister files a petition to invalidate his trust, claiming she is entitled to an inheritance because of the financial contributions she made to his medical care after he became ill. The case ends up going to trial, where the sister’s legal team presents evidence to demonstrate the extent of the sister’s contributions to her brother’s care. Although the evidence is successful in proving the sister’s generosity, it fails to prove the key issue of the case, which is that the decedent’s trust is invalid. The reason the plaintiff has insufficient evidence is because her claim was made on insufficient grounds.
A trust contest aims to prove a trust is invalid by demonstrating the trust instrument is flawed. A trust instrument could be flawed for a number of reasons. Perhaps it was created by someone who lacked mental capacity. Perhaps it was the product of undue influence or fraud. Perhaps it’s a forgery. Perhaps it was improperly executed. Perhaps it was created by mistake. Had the sister demonstrated that any of these scenarios applied to her brother’s trust, she might have been successful in having the instrument invalidated so she could inherit by way of intestate succession. However, because her claim centered on a completely separate issue, it was legally insufficient.
In this example, it may be appropriate for the defense to make a directed verdict motion after both parties have rested their cases. Given that the sister’s key claim is legally insufficient, any reasonable jury would decide the case in favor of the defendant.
Keep in mind that just like a legally insufficient claim can lead to a directed verdict in the defendant’s favor, a legally insufficient defense can lead to a directed verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
Insufficient Evidence
A plaintiff or defendant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims or defenses, respectively, could result in a directed verdict at trial.
As we touched on earlier, the plaintiff must meet the preponderance of evidence standard to win at trial. In simple terms, they must prove they more likely than not were harmed by the defendant. To prove such a thing, they’d need to present evidence to support their claims. If the evidence they present fails to prove the ways in which they more likely than not were harmed and that it was the defendant who more likely than not harmed them, they could be perceived as having insufficient evidence.
In most lawsuits, when a party has insufficient claims or defenses, chances are they’ll have insufficient evidence as well. Evidence is gathered to support claims or defenses, so if certain claims or defenses are legally insufficient, it’s safe to assume the evidence gathered to support them would also be insufficient.
Returning to the trust contest example from the previous section, it’s easy to see how the plaintiff’s legally insufficient claim resulted in her legal team gathering insufficient evidence. This is not to say the evidence it gathered wasn’t factual or convincing. Had the main cause of action been to recover the money the sister contributed to her brother’s medical care, the evidence might have proven effective. However, the main cause of action was to invalidate the brother’s trust, and the evidence did nothing to prove why this action should be taken.
When a plaintiff has insufficient claims and insufficient evidence, it’s almost guaranteed the jury would not rule in their favor. Due to this fact, it would be appropriate for the defense to make a motion for directed verdict. If the tables were turned, and it was the defense lacking sufficient defenses and evidence, it would be appropriate for the plaintiff to make a motion for directed verdict once the defense rests its case.
What Are Potential Outcomes of a Motion for Directed Verdict?
A motion for directed verdict has the potential to significantly alter the direction of a lawsuit — or possibly even end the lawsuit altogether.
Learn about the potential outcomes of motions for directed verdict and the implications of each from the following sections.
Directed Verdict Granted
When a directed verdict motion is granted, it means the court has issued a verdict in the moving party’s favor, effectively ending the case. According to Code of Civil Procedure section 630(c), when a court grants a directed verdict motion, it means the judge has made a final decision on the merits of the case. Therefore, the judge’s decision should be considered the final ruling on the issues involved, unless the judge states otherwise in the order. Section 630(e) states that a directed verdict is final, and that it isn’t required for the jury to sign off on the judge’s decision.
By issuing a directed verdict, the court is agreeing with the moving party that the evidence overwhelmingly favors them, rendering jury deliberation unnecessary. The implication is that jury deliberation would be redundant since any reasonable jury would hand over the same verdict as the judge.
A directed verdict equates to a final judgment. Therefore, if you are the losing party and wish to challenge the directed verdict, you can do so immediately after the directed verdict is granted (supposing the verdict resolves all the claims being litigated) through a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a motion for a new trial, or the California appeals process.
Directed Verdict Partially Granted
When a directed verdict is partially granted, it means the court has issued a verdict partially in the moving party’s favor. According to Code of Civil Procedure section 630(b), if the evidence presented supports the granting of the motion on some claims but not others, the action will continue for the claims that remain unresolved, and no final judgment will be entered until the entire lawsuit reaches a resolution.
By issuing a partially directed verdict, the court is agreeing with the moving party that the evidence overwhelmingly favors a verdict in their favor for certain claims, but is conceding that other claims remain disputed, necessitating jury deliberation. The implication is that a reasonable jury could rule either way based on the evidence admitted at trial, so jury deliberation is required.
A partially directed verdict does not equate to a final judgment. A final judgment isn’t entered until verdicts are issued for all of a lawsuit’s claims; therefore, a partially directed verdict results in some claims being resolved and others being sent to the jury.
Directed Verdict Denied
When a directed verdict is denied, it means the court is unable to issue a verdict in the moving party’s favor because the judge has determined that a jury could rule either way when evaluating the evidence of the case. In other words, because the facts and evidence don’t overwhelmingly favor either party, jury deliberation is needed to reach a verdict. A denied directed verdict, therefore, results in the trial continuing.
By failing to issue a directed verdict, the court is disagreeing with the moving party that the facts and evidence in the case clearly render them the winner. Because the facts are in dispute and the evidence presented isn’t compelling enough to prove which party’s arguments are more likely than not to be true, it’s necessary for the jury to carefully analyze the facts and evidence to arrive at a verdict. The implication is that no reasonable jury could arrive at the correct verdict without deliberation.
A denied directed verdict, like a partially directed verdict, does not equate to a final judgment. A denied directed verdict means that none of the lawsuit’s claims have been resolved through the motion; therefore, the lawsuit must be decided by a jury.
How Motions for Directed Verdicts Work: 8 Facts to Know
As you know, motions for directed verdict are filed either after the plaintiff rests their case or at the close of trial once all the evidence in the lawsuit has been presented. Given that this motion is made so late in the trial process, you may be wondering what the point of it is. Does it really do anything significant to streamline litigation?
The answer to this question is a resounding yes. Not only do directed verdict motions streamline trials, but they have other benefits as well.
Here are some ways motions for directed verdict might help your case:
- Time and cost savings: Because directed verdicts are reached without jury deliberation, they make early resolutions possible, leading to the parties having to potentially dedicate fewer resources to the trial.
- Risk reduction: Although directed verdicts are only applicable in trials where no reasonable jury would rule against the moving party, even reasonable juries can make mistakes. Directed verdicts mitigate that risk by allowing the judge to decide the case in place of the jury. Especially in complex lawsuits, a judge deciding a case might actually be preferable, since the judge would possess the legal knowledge and experience necessary to fully comprehend the lawsuit and its claims.
- Strategic Advantage: Even in instances where the court denies or only partially grants directed verdict motions, the mere making of the motion can strengthen the moving party’s case by highlighting to the jury the weaknesses in the other party’s case. However, keep in mind that the judge will usually require the motion to be made outside the presence of the jury to avoid prejudicing them in the event the motion is denied.
Glancing at the bulleted list above, it’s easy to see why litigants often make motions for directed verdict. It’s true these motions have the potential to streamline litigation, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are many reasons why making a motion for directed verdict may be worth your time, effort, and money.
In order to effectively use this motion to give you an edge at trial, it’s crucial you understand how it works. In the following sections, we discuss the eight most important facts to know about motions for directed verdict.
1. A Motion for Directed Verdict is Typically Requested Prior to Jury Deliberation, But Can Be Requested Earlier
To review, California allows for either party in a lawsuit to make a motion for directed verdict once both parties have presented all their evidence.
Although the opposing party will be negatively impacted by the court granting the moving party a directed verdict, the silver lining is that a directed verdict could lead to an earlier resolution, reducing both parties’ legal costs and time investment.
2. A Denied Motion for Directed Verdict During Trial Can Be Renewed
Suppose you are the plaintiff in a trial. Because the defense is claiming all the facts the defendant is relying on to defend their case have been stated in its opening statements, you make a motion for directed verdict before the defense proceeds with presenting the rest of its case. Although you believe the defendant’s evidence is insufficient in supporting their defenses, the court denies your motion, stating that it’s unable to fairly decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented thus far.
Fortunately, all is not lost when this happens. A motion for directed verdict that is denied before both parties rest their cases can be renewed prior to jury deliberation. A renewed motion for directed verdict asks the court to reconsider its decision now that it has more evidence on which to base it.
Of course, there’s no guarantee the court will grant a renewed motion for directed verdict, but if you’re confident that most of the evidence in the lawsuit points to you being the clear winner, it’s worth trying to make the motion in order to simplify the trial process.
3. A Motion for Directed Verdict May Be Made Orally
Unlike most pre-trial and post-trial motions, a motion for directed verdict may be made orally during trial. In other words, the moving party’s legal team can make an argument in favor of a directed verdict prior to jury deliberation.
Even though motions for directed verdict may seem more informal than other motions since legal documents generally are not required to make them, they still need to be supported with arguments and evidence. For example, if one of your arguments in support of a directed verdict is a court precedent, you’ll want to find the applicable case law to present as evidence to the court.
Put simply, a motion for directed verdict made haphazardly isn’t likely to be granted. Be prepared with legitimate reasons for making the motion.
4. The Opposing Party Has a Right to Respond to the Motion for Directed Verdict
As with other types of motions, the opposing party is entitled to oppose your motion for directed verdict during trial by arguing that certain key issues in the lawsuit remain in dispute.
Suppose the moving party in a lawsuit is the plaintiff. He makes a motion for directed verdict after resting his case because he believes the evidence he’s presented is sufficient in proving the defendant is liable for his injuries, which he claims he sustained from tripping on a wire on the defendant’s property. Although the moving party provided sufficient evidence to prove the severity of his injuries and that it was the defendant’s negligence in maintaining the property that caused his fall, he failed to establish the defendant owed him a duty of care. For this reason, the defendant doesn’t agree the lawsuit is as cut and dried as the plaintiff is claiming and may have viable grounds to oppose the motion.
A party responding to a motion for a directed verdict also has the right to ask the court to reopen their case to allow them to fix any defects raised in the motion. That said, it is rare for the court to grant such a request.
5. It is Rare for the Court to Grant Motions for Directed Verdict
When a motion for directed verdict is granted, the jury is effectively removed from the trial process. As a result, a judge generally wouldn’t grant such a motion unless the key facts of a case are undisputed, and based on those facts, there is a clear winner, rendering jury deliberation unnecessary. If a judge were to grant a directed verdict motion in any other circumstance, they would be compromising the fairness of the trial.
Because most lawsuits that make it to trial have facts in dispute (otherwise the lawsuits likely would have been settled in an earlier stage of litigation), it is rare for the court to grant motions for directed verdict.
That said, just because the court tends to use extreme discretion when granting motions for directed verdict, it doesn’t mean a party should decline to make the motion if they believe the evidence is so one-sided that they’re the clear winner.
Remember, while the time and cost savings associated with directed verdict motions may not be as substantial as they’d be if a party were to resolve a lawsuit via motions or mediation in an earlier phase of litigation, they are still worth making under the right circumstances. If you’re unsure whether your circumstances are right for a directed verdict motion, a skilled litigator can provide guidance.
6. If a Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict is Granted in a Personal Injury or Property Damage Case, Other Defendants Cannot Refer to that Defendant During Trial
Code of Civil Procedure section 630(d) states that if a defendant’s motion for directed verdict is granted in a personal injury or property damage case because they were found to not be at fault, other defendants involved in the lawsuit cannot attribute fault or comment on the absence or involvement of that defendant for the remainder of trial. In other words, if the other defendants make any argument suggesting the not-at-fault defendant is to blame, their arguments will automatically be regarded as invalid.
The reason for this is simple: directed verdicts are only granted in cases where the evidence overwhelmingly favors one party, making jury deliberation unnecessary. In other words, if a defendant in a personal injury or property damage case is granted a directed verdict, it means it was abundantly clear to the judge that the defendant was not responsible for the injuries or property damage incurred by the plaintiff.
7. A Motion for Directed Verdict Can Be Requested After Jury Deliberation If No Verdict is Reached
Sometimes, trials culminate in a jury being discharged without having rendered a verdict. This may happen if jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict after a reasonable amount of time spent deliberating, resulting in a mistrial.
According to Code of Civil Procedure section 630(f), when a jury is discharged without having reached a verdict, it may be possible for the court on its own motion or on the motion of a party to grant a directed verdict, but only if a party had made a motion for directed verdict earlier in the lawsuit that the court had denied but should have granted.
If a party is moving for a directed verdict after the jury has been discharged, then they must do so within 10 days of the jury being discharged. The court, on the other hand, has 30 days from when the jury is discharged to grant or deny a directed verdict motion. A failure by the court to enter any decision within that timeframe will result in an automatic denial of the motion.
8. A Motion for Directed Verdict Can Be Challenged
If you suspect the court erred in granting the opposing party’s motion for directed verdict, you are not without legal recourse. In fact, you have two options for challenging the directed verdict: (1) filing a motion for a new trial or (2) filing an appeal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 659 governs motions for a new trial. New trial motions ask the judge to overturn their directed verdict decision on account of their potentially having made a legal error in granting it so that a new trial can be held in which a jury will decide the case. This motion is most commonly made by losing parties who believe the judge erroneously removed the jury from the trial process to decide the lawsuit themselves.
Suppose a company is suing a third-party contractor for failing to provide all the services listed in his contract with the company. After the plaintiff rests its case, it makes a motion for directed verdict, claiming it has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the defendant is in breach of his contract. Agreeing with the plaintiff’s argument, the judge grants the motion. The defense proceeds to file a motion for a new trial, because had the court allowed the defense to present its evidence, the defense would have shown emails from the plaintiff asking the defendant to change the nature of the services he provides. This wouldn’t necessarily disprove the defendant being in breach of his contract, but it would suggest that disputes exist surrounding the facts, rendering jury deliberation necessary.
The above example illustrates the power of a motion for a new trial in challenging directed verdicts. Keep in mind that to make a motion for a new trial, you must do so within 15 days of the judgment being entered. Additionally, it is within this timeframe that both parties must file their arguments and responses.
Challenging a directed verdict isn’t always easy, nor is deciding which legal strategy to use to challenge it. If challenging a directed verdict is something you wish to do, it is highly recommended that you consult with a knowledgeable litigator as soon as a final judgment is entered in your lawsuit to ensure you don’t miss any important deadlines.
How Do Motions for Directed Verdict Compare to Other Motions?
Directed verdict motions are easy to conflate with other motions that sound similar in nature.
Motion for Directed Verdict vs. Judgment as a Matter of Law
A motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) are almost identical to each other, in that both motions ask the court to decide a case without jury deliberation. The subtle differences between the motions come down to jurisdiction and timing.
A motion for directed verdict is a state motion in California, whereas a JMOL motion is a federal motion. Both motions are made during jury trial either after the plaintiff has finished presenting their evidence or right before a case is sent to the jury for deliberation. A JMOL motion, however, tends to offer more flexibility as far as timing goes than a motion for directed verdict.
Motion for Directed Verdict vs. Summary Judgment
Although a motion for a directed verdict and motion for summary judgment can both culminate in a final judgment, effectively ending a lawsuit, they are made during completely different phases of litigation.
A directed verdict motion is made during trial, usually after the parties rest their cases prior to the case being sent to the jury for deliberation. Conversely, a summary judgment motion is made during the discovery phase of litigation before a lawsuit has proceeded to trial. For this reason, a summary judgment motion could save the parties more money and time if granted than a directed verdict motion.
There also are differences in why each motion is sought. A directed verdict motion is made when the evidence is so one-sided that the winner is evident, and no reasonable jury could rule otherwise. A summary judgment motion, on the other hand, is made when the material facts of a lawsuit are undisputed, so much so that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law without the lawsuit going to trial.
While both motions aim to streamline litigation, they achieve this in different ways.
Motion for Directed Verdict vs. Dismissal
In California, a motion for directed verdict is a state motion, whereas a motion to dismiss is a federal motion. The state equivalent of a motion to dismiss is referred to as a demurrer. Rather than comparing apples to oranges, we’ll compare directed verdict motions with demurrer motions.
A motion for directed verdict and demurrer are completely different from each other. The former is made during trial and asks the court to issue a verdict without jury deliberation. The latter is made at the beginning of litigation to object to the plaintiff’s complaint or respondent’s answer because of the legal insufficiency of its claims or defenses, respectively.
Both directed verdict motions and demurrers can end a lawsuit, but for varying reasons. A directed verdict can end a lawsuit by way of the court deciding it in place of the jury. A demurrer can end a lawsuit by way of the court dismissing it due to the legal insufficiency of its claims (although demurrers can also be used to remove certain claims or defenses without dismissing the entire lawsuit).
FAQs: Motions for Directed Verdict
If you’re familiar with litigation, then you know that it’s usually a complex process. Some of the most challenging, albeit important, aspects of the process to understand are motions, as they can change the direction of a case while also streamlining litigation, leading to time and cost savings and countless other benefits.
Motions for directed verdict are crucial to understand if your case is going to trial or is in the process of being tried. Although we hope you found all the information you need on this motion from the content above, feel free to check out our frequently asked questions below to learn more about this motion type or to find answers to any questions you still have.
Is it appropriate to seek a motion for directed verdict in a bench trial?
No, it is not appropriate to seek a motion for directed verdict in a bench trial, as these motions for directed verdict are specifically reserved for jury trials.
Being that the main purpose of this motion is to eliminate unnecessary jury deliberation, it wouldn’t make sense to apply it to bench trials.
Bench trials are lawsuits in which the verdict is decided by a judge instead of a jury. A defendant might request a bench trial in a lawsuit where the legal issues are so complex that they don’t trust a jury will be able to reach an accurate verdict. Most defendants are entitled to waive their right to a trial by jury for a bench trial, so long as the court and plaintiff agree.
Can a party file a motion for a new trial after a directed verdict?
Yes, as discussed in a previous section, the losing party can generally move for a new trial after a directed verdict. However, they must demonstrate to the court why the directed verdict was erroneous in order to do so.
The losing party cannot move for a new trial just because the directed verdict wasn’t in their favor. The motion will only be granted if it’s apparent the court made a legal error in deciding the case without jury involvement.
What are the consequences of a failure to make a motion for directed verdict?
Although it’s not appropriate to make a motion for directed verdict in every trial, it would be a mistake to fail to make one in a trial where it’s applicable, as this failure could result in the case being sent to the jury for deliberation, resulting in the lawsuit taking longer to resolve. Needless to say, this could lead to higher legal costs and more hassles.
In addition, because directed verdict motions allow a party to argue the opposing party’s evidence is legally insufficient before the case goes to the jury, failing to file the motion could cause a party to lose the opportunity to make this argument. Also, if the case is weak to begin with due to insufficient evidence, a failure to move for a directed verdict could result in the jury reaching an inaccurate verdict.
If you are unsure whether you should make a motion for directed verdict during trial, rather than failing to make it, discuss your lawsuit with a qualified litigator to find out whether it’s a suitable option for resolving your case. The last thing you’d want is to not have any legal recourse available to you post-trial if you lose.
Do motions for directed verdicts apply to civil cases and criminal cases?
Yes, in both civil and criminal cases, when one party’s evidence and/or claims or defenses are insufficient, the other party can make a directed verdict motion to resolve the case in their favor. In criminal cases, directed verdict motions are sometimes referred to as motions for acquittal, and they are governed by California Penal Code secton 1118.1.
Another important distinction to keep in mind when making directed verdict motions in civil cases versus criminal cases is that the burden of proof required in criminal cases is significantly higher than the burden of proof required in civil cases. Whereas criminal cases require the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases require the plaintiff to prove the defendant more likely than not caused them harm.
Because of how much higher the burden of proof is in criminal cases, it is not common for directed verdicts to be sought in them.
Are federal motions for directed verdict the same as the state motions for directed verdict?
As discussed previously, the federal motion for directed verdict has the same purpose and implications as the state motion for directed verdict; however, directed verdict motions on a federal level are referred to as motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).
Federal JMOL motions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50.
Can you switch to a bench trial amid a jury trial?
In general, it’s not possible for a party to request to switch to a bench trial if a jury trial has already been started. If a party wants a bench trial, they must make their intentions clear before trial.
Have litigation questions? Our probate litigation firm has answers.
Litigation often brings a great deal of stress, but it doesn’t have to be that way. With the right legal team by your side, you can reduce your burden and focus only on the essentials, like attending your scheduled hearings. The rest, we take care of. Our goal is to make the process as seamless as possible for you.
As a firm that focuses exclusively on probate litigation, we have extensive experience in every stage of litigation, from filing the initial complaint to representing you at trial. We’re committed to securing the best outcomes for our clients while being mindful of both their time and financial constraints.
Even if your legal matter falls outside of probate, we’re happy to assist by connecting you with a firm that suits your needs. Our mission is to be a resource to everyone who reaches out, whether or not they become a client.
Call us today to learn how we can help. If your matter involves probate, you may qualify for a free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys. We look forward to helping you.
