SENATE BILL 408

Strengthening and Protecting the Sanctity of Civil Jury Verdicts

FACT SHEET

➢ SB 408 is a leaner iteration of last session’s SB 895 that overwhelmingly passed the Senate
30-7 last December. This important modified bill is being re-introduced to strengthen and
protect jury verdicts in certain civil trials.
➢ SB 408, sponsored by Senators Victory and Runestad, protects the sanctity of civil jury
verdicts by providing litigants an appeal as a matter of right.
➢ Currently, Michigan trial judges have unchecked authority to set aside a jury verdict
therefore vacating the will of a jury and can order a retrial even before the Court of Appeals
has time to agree or reject any application for leave. A bad judge can order a second trial on
the 22nd day after vacating the jury verdict. While the aggrieved party can request an appeal,
there is no matter of right to be formerly reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
➢ Currently, a judicial error vacating a jury verdict will not be scrutinized until after the
additional time or litigants, another jury and judge, added costs to the court process and all
parties involved, and stress on the court system and all parties involved in a second jury trial.
➢ SB 408 provides a judicially more efficient right of appeal after the judge’s order vacating
the jury verdict. This proposed right to formal review by the Court of Appeals may even
dispose of the need for a second trial altogether if reversed.
➢ To ensure the fairness and integrity of our judicial system, SB 408 provides litigants with the
ability to file an appeal by right up to 42 days before the scheduled start date of a second
jury trial.
➢ SB 408 is strictly limited to civil cases involving jury verdicts. Medical malpractice,
criminal cases, and personal injury verdicts are specifically exempted from this legislation
and will not be impacted.
➢ SB 408 does NOT reduce the decision-making powers of any judge in any way, nor does it
change a single legal standard for deciding any current or future legal cases.
➢ SB 408 does NOT create a new or additional avenue of appeal. SB 408 merely provides a
litigant a more appropriate opportunity (i.e. after the initial decision to set aside a jury
verdict, not after the second trial) to challenge a sole judge’s decision, which could be wrong
from the start.
 QUESTIONS
1. How is SB 408 different than last session’s SB 895?
SB 408 was thoughtfully revised in response to concerns raised by the State Bar of Michigan, MI
Poverty Law Center, and the Michigan Judges Association with SB 895. Specifically, provisions from
SB 895 were removed related to fee shifting (losers pays) and requiring a new judge for a retrial. SB 408
creates a revised filing window of 42 days before the scheduled start of the second trial. Allowing a
litigant the option to challenge, by right, a judge’s order setting aside a jury’s verdict at least 42 days
before any subsequent trial. This provides an appropriate amount of time to scrutinize the circuit court
judge’s decision and ensure more efficient use of judicial resources. The timeframes proposed in SB 408
are fair and equitable to the litigant who may have to retain separate appellate counsel to evaluate and
prepare a claim of appeal without the benefit or experience of the trial/evidentiary hearing.

2. Who Supports SB 408?

The NON-PARTISAN bill is supported by a wide range of legal and community stakeholders due to its
provisions strengthening fairness and equity in the law. Supporters include many current and former
judges, business leaders, local chambers of commerce, the Michigan Democratic Party, NAACP, and the
13th Congressional District Democratic Committee (see attached list). Moreover, during Senate
Judiciary hearings on SB 895, both the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals conceded and
agreed that a litigant should have the right to appeal a judge’s decision to vacate a jury verdict.

3. How does SB 408 provide more fairness in the judicial system?

SB 408 strengthens the judicial process for civil litigants by ensuring fairness and equity through a right
to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Under the bill, the Court of Appeals must affirm the trial court judge’s
decision before the litigants go through a second trial. Currently, a litigant can appeal the judge’s
decision to set aside the first jury verdict only after the second trial as a matter of right. Should a second
jury find contrary to the first jury, and the Court of Appeals reverses by finding the trial court judge
abused his/her discretion, then the second trial was a waste of resources by all parties and of no effect
other than to convolute and expand the record. Allowing a litigant to challenge, by right, a judge’s order
vacating a jury’s verdict at least 42 days before any subsequent trial will provide the appropriate amount
of time to scrutinize the trial court judge’s decision and ensure more efficient use of judicial resources.

4. How does 408 create greater equitable outcomes for litigants?

An appellate opinion of a trial court judge’s decision to vacate a jury verdict (usurping the jury’s
findings) provides equity for all litigants involved in the case. SB 408 provides litigants who convinced
a jury the opportunity to have the trial court judge’s sole opinion reviewed for appropriateness before
having to endure the additional cost and risk of a second trial. A party can also waive this proposed right
and proceed to a second trail as soon as it can be scheduled by the trial court. Often, individuals and
small businesses have absorbed massive financial costs and burden in a jury trial. It is a derailment of
justice to force these litigants to needlessly waste additional resources when a more equitable remedy
exists that may resolve the matter. American jurisprudence is built on a foundation of fair and impartial
checks-and-balances to validate the integrity of the system. In this circumstance, there is currently no
guaranteed check and balance of the absolute power of a trial court judge to discard the will of a jury.

2
5. What is the downside to this legislation and who opposes?
There is no practical downside to SB 408. However, there may be an appropriate delay in any second
trial (if even necessary). These days, it is a somewhat rare occurrence to even obtain a civil jury verdict.
It’s even more rare for a judge to set aside a jury’s verdict. So, under these circumstances any perceived
delay in a second trial is warranted by the rarity of the situation and the importance and belief in an
impartial, equitable judicial system. Opponents of SB 408 cannot pinpoint why they oppose the sanctity
of jury verdicts or that the right to judicial review is not paramount to a just and equitable judicial
system. They can only vaguely articulate their general opposition. Only a party who knew its trial
judge’s opinion would not withstand appellate review would be concerned with the enactment of SB 408
because they would have no do-over trial. In fact, as mentioned previously, numerous current and
former justices support SB 408 for its transparency and curative approach to ensure the integrity of
judicial decisions.

Nothing proposed in SB 408 would prevent a party from waiving its right to appellate review before any
second trial. The parties could agree to an immediate second trial scheduled at the trial court’s earliest
available date. However, by not waiving the proposed right to appeal, SB 408 provides a more efficient
and economical avenue to ensure the integrity of the judicial decision to vacate a civil jury verdict. The
timeframes proposed in SB 408 are fair and equitable to the litigant who may have to retain separate
appellate counsel to evaluate and prepare a claim of appeal without the benefit or experience of the
trial/evidentiary hearing. It is fair to all litigants that the decision to vacate a jury verdict is appealable
as a matter of right.

6. What is the upside to the legislation?

SB 408 has many benefits like:
➢ Judicial Economy, Efficiency & Expediency – SB 408 ensures judicial and administrative trial
court resources will not be used for any unnecessary re-trials; and
➢ Judicial Integrity & Fairness – SB 408 reinforces the concept of checks-and-balances on the
tyranny of trial court judge’s over litigants when vacating a jury verdict; and
➢ Judicial Foundation & Review – SB 408 protects the foundational belief that verdicts by a jury
of peers is sacrosanct in Michigan, which is why the bill is supported by current and former
judges, business leaders, and local chambers of commerce, among others.