Question: In civil and criminal cases, who is the “13th Juror”?
Answer: It is the trial judge who must determine whether in the minds of reasonable jurors a contrary verdict should have been reached. The “thirteenth juror” concept is found in Indiana Trial Rule 59(J)(7) pursuant to which the trial court may weigh evidence and judge witness credibility. When sitting as a “thirteenth juror” the trial court may order a new trial if the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Sitting as a thirteenth juror the trial court “must determine whether in the minds of reasonable men a contrary verdict should have been reached.” When granting a new trial on grounds that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court is required to enter special findings of fact setting forth the “supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which a new trial is granted.” The procedural requirements enumerated in Trial Rule 59(J) and the process of making the requisite special findings have been characterized as “arduous and time consuming.” However, the purpose of these requirements is to provide the parties and the reviewing court with the theory of the trial court’s decision. Finally, mere conflicts or inconsistencies in testimony favoring the verdict do not give rise to mandatory operation of the Thirteenth Juror Principle.
