A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for breach of contract. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claims. Shortly after the judgment, the plaintiff discovered a new witness who claims to have direct knowledge of the contract's existence. The plaintiff promptly filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the new witness’s testimony is vital to the case. Should the court grant the motion for a new trial?
No, because the plaintiff lost the case after failing to present sufficient evidence during trial.
No, because the plaintiff has not shown that the new evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the trial.
Yes, because the new evidence is important and directly relates to the core issue in the case.
Yes, because the discovery of a new witness demonstrates that justice requires a reconsideration of the case.
A motion for a new trial can be granted if the moving party demonstrates that newly discovered evidence would likely change the outcome of the trial and that this evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the trial. In this case, the plaintiff's motion should fail because the plaintiff did not specify why this witness could not have been identified earlier with reasonable diligence. It's insufficient to argue only that the evidence is significant; there must also be a demonstration that it was unavailable despite diligent efforts before the trial. Other answers are incorrect because they either misstate the standard for granting a new trial or incorrectly focus on the importance of the new evidence rather than its discoverability before trial.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is a motion for a new trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does reasonable diligence mean in a legal context?