In the U.S., if the jury convicts, and the trial judge then grants a defence motion to set aside the conviction and enters an acquittal, can the prosecution appeal? Is the judge’s decision in this type of situation the same as if the jury had acquitted, so no appeal?
IANAL, but it’s my understanding that once a person is deemed not guilty by whatever means, he/she cannot be re-tried for that same offense.
It is my understanding, however, that the former defendant can be accused of a different specific offense based on the same incident. Or sued in civil court, where there is a lower burden of proof.
State v. Kepley, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2010 WL 3582389 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2010).
No. If the judge were sitting as the finder of fact in a bench trial, then the prosecution could not appeal. But when the judge sets aside the jury’s verdict, he’s saying that as a matter of law, on the record before the court, no reasonable jury could have have found guilt. That’s a conclusion of law, which an appellate court can review without any particular deference to the trial judge’s opinion. And they can certainly decide he made a mistake.
Interestingly enough, consider the reverse: a jury convicts, and the defendant appeals, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. If, on appeal, the appellate court agrees, not only is the verdict overturned, but there is no new trial. Can’t be – double jeopardy applies.
Not exactly, no.
Once the accused is acquitted, he may not be retried for the same crime, or any crime which requires proof of the exact same elements.
Now – can he be tried for some other crime that arises from some of the other elements, but adds some new ones?
For example, let’s imagine a trial for armed robbery, where the prosecution contends that the accused accosted a pedestrian, pointed a gun at him, ordered him to surrender his wallet, and then shot once into the air, saying, “I’ll use this, man, I swear I will!” The vicitim hands over his wallet and the robber flees.
The jury acquits.
Now, may the state come back and try him for discharging a firearm within city limits?
Maybe. (Some states have procedural laws that require them to try all offenses arising out of a course of conduct together, but putting those aside…) From a double jeopardy standpoint, discharging a firearm inside city limits is not the smae crime as armed robbery.
Our defendant may still assert the defense of collateral estoppel. His claim in doing so would be that in order to acquit him, the jury must have found that he wasn’t the guy that fired the shot. But without an examination of how the trial went, we don’t know the answer. Could a jury have acquitted him because they didn’t believe he took the wallet, for example? To decide the collateral estoppel defense, that’s the question that has to be answered.
Ashe v. Swenson is the seminal case.
IANAL, but isn’t there a constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial? By the time a case of robbery has worked through the courts, if a collateral charge is filed afterwards I would assume so much tme has passed that the defendant would claim his right to a speedy trial is violated.
The state cannot save up its evidence and wait until the day before the statute of limitations expires to file charges against the culprit. They have a duty to file charges in a timely manner once it knows the facts.
You have a right to a speedy trial, not necessarily a speedy indictment. Ask anyone who’s been tried for murder years or decades after the fact.
One question that has not been raised is what if the judge orders a directed verdict of not guilty? I assume that is not appealable.
In Canada a not guilty verdict is appealable. There was a case several decades ago involving an abortion doctor. He was acquitted by the first trial. It was genuinely a case of jury nullification since the facts were not in dispute and the verdict was unanimous. This was appealed and the appelate judge not only granted the appeal but reversed the jury and issued a guilty verdict! This was reversed on appeal and a new trial ordered. The jury was hung and on one further trial had the same result before the crown (government) abandoned the case. After that there was no further attempt to prosecute abortion cases and the law was eventually repealed.
What I don’t understand is if the judge at some point during the trial reached this conclusion in his/her mind, why would s/he let the decision go to the jury in the first place rather than dismissing the charges (or whatever the action would be called in this case)?
I have a question regarding the fundamental issue here:
Why is it that the judge can over-rule the jury?
If that is the case, then what is the point of having a jury in the first place?
If the judge has the power to invalidate a jury verdict, is the whole concept of a jury just a PR smoke screen?
The judge is still in charge of the trial, the law and proceedings even when there is a jury. The jury must make their decision about the facts presented based on supporting evidence and the relevant law. Essentially, there must be enough evidence that it is possible for a jury to find an individual guilty/not guilty. The question the judge asks him/herself is: Could the facts presented support the verdict the jury has reached? If the answer is no, then jury nullification should happen. The point is that the jury cannot just make up a verdict based on however they feel and without regard to the evidence presented or the law.
If you have never watched a jury trial, I recommend going to your court and checking one out. You’ll get a much better idea of a how a judge runs a trial and is in charge of court proceedings.
But jury nullification does happen, in cases where the jury finds for the defendant contrary to the facts, does it not? My impression is that a judge can set aside a guilty verdict, but cannot do the same for a not guilty verdict. Correct?
Yes, I get all that; but your response does not answer the question.
If the judge can decide beforehand that the evidence is sufficient or not, and that in his opinion the jury verdict is valid or not, what is the point of the jury?
In light of the above, it seems to me that the jury is just window dressing placed there to decorate the judge’s opinion.
If the jury rubber stamps the judge’s opinion, then the verdict stands. If it fails to do so, the judge sends them away until he gets the verdict he likes.
Who is to say the judge’s opinion has more weight than that of 12 jurors?
Evidently, the judge says so.
Did you read my post immediately below Amasia’s?
Sorry for the multiple posts, but thinking this through – is it because the judge could only dismiss charges in response to a defense request? Maybe s/he doesn’t have the ability to stand up mid-trial and, on her own initiatiative pronounce, “You know what? This is all B*LLSHIT! Dismissed!” (gavel slam) – and instead must wait for the opportunity to respond to the jury’s decision. Is that how it is?
Yes, I did.
My reading of your response supports my contention: that the judge is exercising his opinion to direct the outcome of the trial.
IMHO, his role should be limited to ensuring that the technical aspects of due PROCESS are observed, as opposed to your response which says that his role is to direct the jury to his opinion of the verdict.
So to repeat my question: why does he have any influence over the verdict? Ie: why is the opinion of one judge worth more than that of twelve jurors?
A directed verdict is typically used when, as a matter of law the evidence presented is such that no reasonable man could arrive at the contrary verdict. For example, the prosecution may have completely failed to orovide any evidence establishing a necessary element of the alleged crime: say I am being tried for the crime of fraudulently selling you a fake antique Victorian armoire, holding it out to be the real thing. To constitute criminal fraud, I would have had to knowingly misrepresent the piece as something it is not. There is no dispute I sold it to you, and experts have testified that it was a 1930s replica, not the real thing. (And no doubt you’d win at a civil suit. But I inherited it from my grandfather and always thought it was the real thing. The prosecution utterly failed to prove I knowingly defrauded you. From the judge’s POV, until the prosecution rested there was always the chance he might introduce evidence to show it was knowing fraud. And my lawyer, not the sharpest tack in the box, failed to move for summary dismissal. Since a jury has been empaneled, they not the judge are the judges of the facts – whether the evidence given meets the definition of criminal fraud. Normally his charge to the jury would outline the elements they need to look at in reaching their verdict. But in this case, one required element is not even under doubt, there is just plain no evidence even suggesting it. So he tells them they have to acquit, and why.
His opinion about the facts would in general be irrelevant; the most he might do is to give them some general guidance iun evaluating the evidence. Buit this is a matter of law – one required element of the crime is just plain not there. For it to be criminal fraud, the prosecution needed to prove I knowingly defrauded you – and they did not do so. This is different from letting the jury gauge whether someone’s actions were malicious, reckless, etc. – the prosecution was required to prove that in selling you the armoire, I knew that it was not what I represented to you as being – and they didn’t even attempt to do so. On the evidence presented, no jury could find that I knowingly defrauded you – so the judge is obliged to direct an acquittal.
Because as Bricker points out, that decision is appealable. If the judge lets it go to the jury and they acquit, the case is over.
It may help to remember that the jury’s job is to weigh the evidence and decide what, factually, happened. The judge’s job is to decide the law.
The accused says, “I was never in that store!”
The clerk says, “I saw you come in and steal the necklace.”
The jury’s job is to weigh the demeanor and credibility of the two witnesses, and decide who they believe. They have enough evidence to convict him, if they want, by believing the clerk. And they can certainly acquit him by believing him. Either way, the judge cannot disturb their verdict.
But now let’s imagine that the clerk just says, “I saw the guy hanging around outside the store, and I know he’s stolen lots of other stuff, so I figure he must have been the guy who took the necklace. Probably sold it to buy more kiddie porn!”
The jury believes the clerk and votes to convict. But here, the judge can step in: the clerk never testified he saw the theft, and so there’s no actual evidence in the record that the jury could have relied on to find guilt. The jury has convicted because they don’t like the picture the evidence painted, not because the evidence proved each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think I understand but can it work the other way round, ie a jury does not convict and a judge steps in and says, “I’m reversing that decision. No reasonable person could fail to convict in light of the overwhelming evidence the prosecution presented.”