Civil Procedure: Trial Procedures and Evidence

The trial is the climactic event in civil litigation, where evidence is tested, stories are told, and a final decision is rendered. Mastering trial procedures—the rules that govern how a case is presented—and the law of evidence is essential for any litigator, as strategic missteps here can undo years of pretrial work. This article examines the critical phases and motions that define a civil trial, from selecting the jury to challenging the verdict.

Jury Selection and Opening Statements

The trial begins long before the first witness takes the stand. The foundational step is assembling an impartial jury through jury selection, a process formally known as voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys and sometimes the judge question prospective jurors to uncover biases or preconceptions that could affect their judgment. Each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges (which can be used to dismiss a juror without stating a reason, subject to constitutional limits on discrimination) and an unlimited number of challenges for cause (where a specific reason, like a demonstrated bias, must be given).

Once the jury is empaneled, each party presents an opening statement. This is not an argument but a roadmap. The plaintiff’s attorney outlines the story they intend to prove through evidence, framing the dispute and introducing key facts. The defendant’s attorney follows, either presenting a counter-narrative or highlighting the weaknesses in the plaintiff’s anticipated case. A powerful opening sets expectations for the jury and provides a lens through which all subsequent testimony will be viewed.

The Presentation of Evidence and Closing Arguments

The heart of the trial is the evidence presentation phase. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof (typically "by a preponderance of the evidence") and presents their case-in-chief first, calling witnesses and introducing exhibits. The defendant may cross-examine each witness. The defendant then presents their case-in-chief, followed by the plaintiff’s rebuttal. Throughout this process, the rules of evidence control what information the jury may consider. These rules govern the admissibility of testimony, documents, and physical objects, excluding material that is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or based on hearsay without an applicable exception.

After both sides rest, they deliver closing arguments. Unlike opening statements, closings are persuasive summations. Attorneys weave the admitted evidence into a coherent narrative, arguing why it meets or fails to meet the legal standards required for a verdict in their favor. They connect facts to jury instructions, which the judge will provide later, aiming to shape the jury’s final deliberation.

Critical Motions During and After Trial: Rule 50

A key strategic tool for a defendant is the motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), formerly called a directed verdict. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), a party may move for JMOL after the opposing party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial. The standard is high: the court may grant the motion only if "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Essentially, the moving party argues that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no rational jury could rule in their favor. If granted, the case is decided by the judge without the jury deliberating.

If the Rule 50(a) motion is denied and the jury returns a verdict against the moving party, they may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). This post-verdict motion must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. The court may then reconsider the earlier motion, often with the benefit of seeing the full trial unfold. In deciding a Rule 50(b) motion, the court examines the entire record, but still draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party (the verdict winner). Granting this motion overturns the jury’s verdict.

Challenging the Verdict: New Trial and Remittitur/Additur

An alternative or concurrent post-trial strategy is moving for a new trial under Federal Rule 59. Grounds for a new trial are broader than for JMOL and include claims that the verdict is against the "clear weight of the evidence," that improper evidence was admitted, that jury instructions were erroneous, or that misconduct prejudiced the proceedings. The judge acts as a "thirteenth juror," weighing the evidence to a degree to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Two specific remedies related to damages are remittitur and additur. Remittitur occurs when a judge finds a jury’s damages award excessive. The court may conditionally deny a motion for a new trial on damages if the plaintiff agrees to a reduction to a legally justifiable amount. If the plaintiff refuses, a new trial may be ordered. Additur is the converse: the judge increases an inadequate damages award. However, additur is generally not permitted in federal courts under the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, though some state courts allow it. These tools allow judges to correct runaway verdicts without the cost and delay of a full retrial.

Common Pitfalls

1. Treating Opening Statements as Argument: A common mistake is to use the opening statement to argue the case or over-promise on what the evidence will show. This erodes credibility if the evidence later falls short. The opening should be a factual preview, not a rhetorical flourish.
2. Failing to Preserve Issues for Appeal with Timely Objections: During evidence presentation, an attorney must make a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appellate review. Simply believing evidence is inadmissible is insufficient; you must state the specific legal ground for the objection (e.g., "hearsay," "lack of foundation") on the record when the evidence is offered.
3. Misusing Rule 50 Motions: Confusing the standards for Rule 50 and a motion for a new trial is a strategic error. JMOL under Rule 50 is about legal sufficiency—whether any rational jury could find for the opponent. A new trial motion concerns the fairness of the process and the weight of the evidence. Using the wrong motion with the wrong standard will lead to denial.
4. Overlooking the Procedural Nuance of Rule 50(b): A party cannot file a renewed JMOL under Rule 50(b) unless they first made a Rule 50(a) motion at the close of all evidence. Forfeiting the initial motion waives the right to the more powerful post-verdict motion, a critical procedural trap.

Summary

• Trial procedures are a sequenced framework beginning with jury selection (voir dire) and opening statements, progressing through the critical evidence presentation phase governed by rules of admissibility, and concluding with persuasive closing arguments.
• Judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) allows a judge to decide an issue during trial if no rational jury could find for the opposing side, while a renewed motion under Rule 50(b) can overturn a jury's verdict after the fact on the same legal insufficiency grounds.
• A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) is a broader challenge based on the weight of the evidence or procedural errors, giving the judge discretion to order a re-do of the trial.
• Judges can adjust damages awards through remittitur (reducing an excessive award) and, in some state courts, additur (increasing an inadequate award), serving as corrective measures short of a new trial.
• Strategic awareness—such as using openings as roadmaps, making timely objections, and correctly deploying post-trial motions—is as vital as knowing the black-letter law to effectively navigate a civil trial.