Can a Judge over rule a Jury?
Answers:
The answers to this question (especially from those who purport to be legal authorities) are scary. Please do not listen to folks that difinitavely have answered "yes" or "no" because it is simply not that clearcut.
A judge may, in some jurisdictions and in some types of cases set aside a jury verdict (called JNOV in most jurisdictions). While the standards may vary, JNOV usually arises when the judge finds that the jury has ruled against the weight of the evidence, i.e. that no reasonable jury could have ruled in that favor appropriately looking at the evidence. This is different than a mistrial because in a JNOV a judge may actually enter a new verdict, not merely dismiss the proceedings.
There are some situations (like certain child custody hearings) where a judge does not hold the power to enter a JNOV, and the judgment may only be overruled by appeal.
If you are looking at this situation, you should contact a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
No, not unless there has been some sort of mistrial.
When you enter into a court where a US military flag (gold fringe) is displayed, you are no longer in a court adjudicating Constitutional Law. You are in a martial law (Article 4) court adjudicating admiralty and maritime law and everyone in there are members of the "BAR". BAR stands for BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY. That judge must answer to the crown of England, not the Constitutional Republic of the united States of America. Technically he is violating his oath of office, but he could be disbarred if he doesn't tow the line.
Judges can and do overturn jury verdicts because under British law, the crown is sovereign and the people are subjects of the crown. The jury is comprised of subjects and their decision can be overthrown by the judge who is an extension of the crown.
Yes . . . in America. Why, you may ask? Because that's the ride you signed on for when you became a 14th amendment (second class) US citizen.
.
Yes , if a judge has reason to believe that the jury made a mistake , he has the right to cancel their decision and make his own. This seldom happens tho as the rule is that you are tried by a "jury of your peers" not by a judge, unless you chose to give up that right .
In some cases, yes. They call it "setting aside the jury decision".
Yes , a judge is highest level of rule and jury are play as assistants.
In some states, yes. The judge can "set aside" a verdict of guilty. The judge cannot set aside a verdict of not guilty.
No. When one opts for a jury trial, their decision is final. The judge does impose sentencing based on the jury's decision.
in a criminal matter the judge may not over rule a jury in a civil case it is different many times a judge has reduced a jury damage award, and in some rare cases only in civil a judge can over rule a civil jury decision
It is true that most of the knuckleheads who submitted an answer are not correct. Some are down right wrong. And some, like Pilgrim, are just plain stupid.
A judge may rule that a jury made a mistake and can set aside any verdict given by a jury. While this does not happen often it is not unheard of.
Most often it happens when a judge feels the jury made a decision that was not based on fact of law. The typical case is when a jury finds someone guilty because it was proven that the defendant was a despicable person but it was not proven he committed the crime.
It is by far rarer for a judge to over turn a not-guilty verdict as they are often reversed on appeal. Being reversed on appeal is being told by your peers that you are wrong, for the judge.
Judges rarely set aside verdicts in civil cases because of the likelihood of reversal. In criminal court you are convicted of committing a crime. In civil court you were proven to be responsible for some event. For the judge it is much easier to just award the plaintiff very little money because the award is less likely to be reversed or changed. And if it is changed it is a difference of opinion not a correction of a professional mistake, for the judge.
Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is similar to summary judgment, which is a motion made before trial. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American Federal courts.
In United States Federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50. JMOL is decided by the standard of whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of the party opposing the JMOL motion. If there is no evidence to support a reasonable conclusion for the opposing party, judgment is entered by the court and the case is over. If there is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable conclusion in favor of the opposing party, but there is equally strong evidence to support an opposite conclusion, the party with the burden of production fails.
Timing is very important in making a motion for JMOL; the motion can only be made once the opposing party has presented its case. In civil cases, the plaintiff presents her case, then the defendant presents his/her case, then the plaintiff may present a rebuttal. So, once the plaintiff has presented his/her case, the defendant may move for JMOL, but the plaintiff may not. Once the defendant has finished presenting his/her case, the plaintiff may move for JMOL, and so may the defendant.
JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned, but the motion is then more commonly known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or j.n.o.v. (from the English judgment and the latin non obstante verdicto). However, in order to move for j.n.o.v., the movant must have moved for a JMOL before the verdict as well. This procedural quirk is necessary because it is considered a violation of the 7th amendment for a judge to overturn a jury verdict. Instead, the judge is said in a j.n.o.v. to be reexamining not the verdict, but his previous rejection of JMOL.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: