Advocate Aug13 issue3_Advocate template 2007.qxd 7/23/2013 10:23 AM Page 70
Post-trial — continued
supra, 55 Cal.2d at p. 166.) Thus, a judge may not grant a new trial in an expedited jury trial merely because the judge would have reached a different outcome if the matter had been submitted to the judge in a non-jury, court trial.
• What about inconsistent verdicts? In non-expedited civil jury trials, “‘Inconsistent verdicts are against the law’ and are grounds for a new trial. [Citation.]” (City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc. (2005)
Help your client get the medical care they need. Diagnostic Radiology on Lien Spinal Injections on Lien
Full service, multimodality diagnostic imaging center, combining advanced imaging technology, such as CT and MRI, with sub-specialized Radiologists in neuroradiology, musculoskeletal, body imaging and oncoradiology.
We specialize in image-guided, minimally invasive interventional procedures for the treatment and management of both acute and chronic pain.
Translation assistance is available in Spanish, Farsi, French and Korean.
www.landmarkimaging.com (310) 914-7336
11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90025
70 — The Advocate Magazine
AUGUST 2013
126 Cal.App.4th 668, 682.) Inconsistent verdicts may occur “[w]here the findings are contradictory on material issues, and the correct determination of such issues is necessary to sustain the judgment.” (Cavallaro v. Michelin Tire Corp. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 95, 101.) Nonetheless, in non-expedited jury trials, inconsistent verdicts constitute a ground for a new trial only because the verdict is against the law within the meaning of section 657, subdivision (6) (City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.) Inconsistent verdicts are not grounds for a new trial based on jury misconduct; the jury in this situation errs, but not intentionally. (Ibid.) Therefore, under the Expedited Jury Trials Act, a verdict being against the law is not a ground for a new trial or for an appeal from a judgment. (§ 630.03, subd. (e)(2)(A), 630.09, subd. (d).) Nor does a court have any inherent authority to grant a new trial on this basis. (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.2d at p. 166.)
Conclusion
“The goal of the expedited jury trial in California is to promote the speedy and economical resolution of cases and conserve judicial resources.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 2284 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess.) March 22, 2010, p. 4.) In assessing whether an expedited jury trial is a viable possibility, a lawyer and his or her client should carefully consider all the advantages and drawbacks, including the limited recourses available for moving for a new trial or for appealing the judgment. Alex Ricciardulli is a judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court assigned to the court’s Appellate Division. He is co-author of California Criminal Law, The CALCRIM Handbook, and California Criminal Motions (West 2012), and runs the Daily Journal and Center for Judicial Education and Research’s MCLE and Judicial Education Articles Series.