In a criminal case, is a JNOV absolutely final (assuming no funny stuff like bribery)? Could the prosecution appeal the decision?
Surprisingly (to me), yes Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict - Criminal Defense Wiki
Judgement notwithstanding the Verdict, sometimes shortened to JNOV, refers to a motion filed after a jury verdict directing the judge to aquit the defendant. A judge may reverse a jury verdict if they believe that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict. Typically, the burden is very high on the defendant to show that no reaosnable jury could have reached the verdict and judges rarely issue JNOVs in criminal cases. JNOV is most likely to occur if the prosecution enters no evidence on an essential element of the crime and the jury still returns a guilty verdict. The prosecutor may appeal the JNOV.
A related concept in criminal law is the writ of error coram nobis.
The pricipal of double jeopardy prevents judges from reversing “not guilty” verdicts by juries.
I had read that but I thought they were referring to civil matters. Re-reading it, I see that the judge needs a good reason and can’t just nullify the jury if they vote to convict.
Related question: can the prosecutor appeal a sentence that they feel is too lenient, e.g. the judge suspends the sentence or sentences the defendant to 1 day or something when the guidelines recommend years?
They can in Canada, but I don’t believe that’s allowed in the US.
The prosecutor in his lawyerly manner lied to the jury, telling them that Latimer killed his daughter because he was tired of looking after her, not because of her immense suffering. As I recall at the time, some of the jury was shocked to discover that the judge could not just give him probation after finding him guilty.
At his second trial, the judge gave him a year instead of the mandatory 10, and that was overturned on appeal to 10.
An interesting side note, correct me if I’m wrong, but the jury is deliberately (sorry!) not told the mandatory or possible sentences before determining guilt so that it does not influence their decision.
Oh I remember the case and I thought that convicting him of anything was a horrible miscarriage of justice. I’d have rather put the prosecutor in for 10.
This reminds me of the Jordan Brown case, where an 11-year-old boy was convicted of killing his stepmother. Upon appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that the evidence presented was insufficient, overturning his conviction, and (effectively) acquitting him, so no retrial.
I think the general sentiment was “he did something wrong, you can’t just decide on your own that someone is better off dead” - but treating it as first degree murder and mandatory 10 years was not what the jury thought appropriate. Some apparently were very upset after the sentencing in the first trial. The judge in the second trial obviously felt the same.
Canada at one time allowed an appeal court to overturn a jury acquittal and substitute a “guilty” verdict. This almost never happened. The one time it did in recent history, was when a Montreal jury acquitted Dr. Henry Morgetaler of performing an abortion in 1973. (The prosecutor threatened a foreign student that they would deport her back to Africa and tell her family why, if she did not testify against him).
When the Quebec appeal court substituted a guilty verdict, the federal justice minister saw nothing wrong with that and even bet a reporter that it would never happen again in their lifetime. 3 separate times, juries acquittted him. A politial cartoon showed a prison guard passing his meal into his cell saying “Congratulations. You’ve been acquitted again.” Eventually the government had to pass a law making a substitution of guilty impossible by the appeal court.
AFAIK (perhaps an expert can weigh in) now jury acquittals are final like in the USA.
In the US, virtually any verdict is appealable once as a matter of right. A JNOV is often easier to appeal than a jury verdict because a jury (or any factfinder) is entitled to deference on appeal. They get to see the witness testimony and evaluate credibility while the appellate court doesn’t.
It’s very rare for there to be a pure question of whether there was any evidence to support an element of a charge (or civil cause of action). 99% of the time, JNOVs and directed verdicts are based on purportedly insufficient evidence.
This may or may not be true for Louisiana, where everything is different.
With the major exception being that a prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.