Wrong result grounds for a new trial include which statement?

Wrong result grounds for a new trial include which statement?

• A. The jury's verdict is consistent with the evidence
• B. The jury's verdict is merely a close call
• C. The jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence
• D. The verdict is not final

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is that a new trial can be ordered when the result is so contrary to the evidence that justice requires reconsideration. When a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, the court weighs all the evidence and finds that the jury’s decision is not reasonable in light of what was proven. That is a recognized basis for granting a new trial because it signals a miscarriage of justice—the jury effectively ignored a substantial body of evidence supporting the opposite outcome. Why this choice fits best: saying the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence captures that sense of a clearly unsupported result after weighing all the proof. It’s not just a matter of personal disagreement or a close call; it’s a verdict that cannot be sustained given the evidentiary balance. Why the others don’t fit: a verdict that is consistent with the evidence aligns with what was proven and does not justify a new trial. A merely close call reflects a jury’s weighing that remains within the realm of reasonable conclusions, not a clear miscarriage of justice. The statement that the verdict is not final concerns the procedural status, not the sufficiency of the evidence or the fairness of the result in this trial.

The idea being tested is that a new trial can be ordered when the result is so contrary to the evidence that justice requires reconsideration. When a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, the court weighs all the evidence and finds that the jury’s decision is not reasonable in light of what was proven. That is a recognized basis for granting a new trial because it signals a miscarriage of justice—the jury effectively ignored a substantial body of evidence supporting the opposite outcome.

Why this choice fits best: saying the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence captures that sense of a clearly unsupported result after weighing all the proof. It’s not just a matter of personal disagreement or a close call; it’s a verdict that cannot be sustained given the evidentiary balance.

Why the others don’t fit: a verdict that is consistent with the evidence aligns with what was proven and does not justify a new trial. A merely close call reflects a jury’s weighing that remains within the realm of reasonable conclusions, not a clear miscarriage of justice. The statement that the verdict is not final concerns the procedural status, not the sufficiency of the evidence or the fairness of the result in this trial.