In these cases if we are entitled to JMOL because the defendant failed to establish one of these defenses, we would ordinarily be entitled to judgment on liability.
Remember -- the sufficiency of the evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless a motion for JMOL has been made in the trial court prior to submission of the case to the jury and renewed on the same ground after an adverse verdict. Nor is sufficiency of the evidence reviewable if the trial court denied a motion that does not state specific grounds as required by Rule 50(a). Only in rare cases will an appellate court look at the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict absent a motion for JMOL when it would constitute plain error apparent on the face of the record that, if not noticed, would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
* As indicated in the Introduction to this section (see section III.A., above), even where sufficient grounds for JMOL are absent, the legal unit should consider moving for a new trial under Rule 59 where the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.