If a defendant is found guilty at a criminal trial, one of the first things he'll usually seek is a post-conviction remedy for relief from the conviction. There are various remedies you can seek by motioning the court. A motion is a request to the court that asks for a particular decision.

A motion for a new trial is very common. This motion requests the court overturn the jury verdict or judge's decision and order a new trial. There are a variety of reasons why a court may agree.

Newly Discovered Evidence

You can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court is very strict on what evidence types support a motion for a new trial. The four criteria that must be met to base a new trial on newly discovered evidence are:

  • The evidence is newly discovered and not known to you during trial
  • The evidence must be material and not merely cumulative
  • Your failure to learn of the evidence wasn't for lack of diligence
  • The evidence will probably mean a different result at a new trial

If you know about evidence at the time of trial, you can't claim after trial the evidence is newly discovered. Newly available evidence isn't the same thing as newly discovered evidence. If you know the substance of the evidence at trial, you can't later claim it's newly discovered.

The evidence must be material to the main issues of the trial. If the evidence is merely cumulative of evidence that the defendant already has in his possession, it won't support a motion for a new trial. Also, evidence that just further impeaches a witness whose character has already been shown to be questionable doesn't support a new trial. To impeach means to question the credibility or honesty of a witness.

If the defendant could have discovered the evidence using due diligence, it won't support a new trial. Courts expect defendants to make an effort and discover any evidence that'll support their positions. They won't allow a defendant to have a new trial based on evidence that he could have easily found.

The last requirement is that the evidence will probably result in the defendant being found not guilty. The defendant isn't entitled to a new trial if the evidence wouldn't have made a difference. All four of these criteria must be met in order to base a new trial on newly discovered evidence.

In the Interest of Justice

The court may overturn any conviction and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires. This means that it would be an injustice if the court didn't grant a new trial. The court has broad discretion to decide when a new trial is required. Various reasons have been held by courts to support a new trial under the interest of justice standard. Some examples include:

  • Jury bias 
  • Jury misconduct 
  • Improper jury instructions
  • Insufficient evidence to support a conviction
  • Misconduct on the part of the prosecutor
  • The judge didn't excuse himself from the case even though there was a conflict of interest

A motion for a new trial is usually only granted in exceptional cases. Courts want finality in their decisions. They don't want to grant new trials based on flimsy reasons. Some examples of reasons that courts decided didn't support a new trial include:

  • Improper cross-examination by the prosecutor that was remedied by a jury instruction
  • Short jury deliberation 
  • Claim that certain witnesses lacked credibility
  • Claim that the jury verdict was inconsistent
  • Defendant not allowed to call certain witnesses
  • Harmless constitutional violations

Questions for Your Attorney

  • How much diligence does the court expect the defendant to take in searching for evidence? What if someone was trying to hide the evidence?
  • What happens if I discover new evidence during the jury deliberations? What if the prosecutor never gave me certain evidence that I was entitled to have before trial?
  • Will the court grant a new trial in the interest of justice if the prosecutor made a lot of improper remarks throughout the trial? What if the judge made a lot of improper remarks?