I recall there was a case in the States some years ago when a British nanny was found guilty of murder by the jury. The trial judge, not agreeing with the verdict, overturned it and set the nanny free.
Am I misremembering this? Because thinking about it now it seems to make a mockery of the whole jury system. I thought juries were the sole judges of guilt or innocence in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence? If the judge can toss any verdict he doesn’t like what’s the point of having a jury? As I say, I might have this ass-backward but I would like to know what powers judges have in respect of a verdict duly delivered by a jury.
I believe you are talking about the Louise Woodward case in the Boston area. She was an English nanny who was suspected of causing shaken baby syndrome that caused brain damage and eventual death in the child in her care.
You are going to have to read more about the case and come back with more detailed questions if you still have them. In her case, she was put on trial for murder and convicted. It wasn’t that the judge just disregarded the jury findings. She did go to prison for the better part of a year. However, she won an appeal and there were enough problems that surfaced in the way her original trial was handled that the charge was eventually reduced to involuntary manslaughter and she was let out with time served as her punishment.
I can’t say I disagree with appeals judge even though she probably did cause the child’s death. It was most likely either an accident or something that qualified for manslaughter but not murder. The original prosecutors went for a murder conviction only when it probably wasn’t a true murder case in the legal sense. Based on the irregularities in the case, the appeals process did the right thing by overturning the original conviction.
I believe the fancy phrase for this is judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the judge can do if he/she thinks that the jury was completely and utterly wrong to convict on the evidence presented. An acquittal can’t be reversed to a conviction this way, though, under the Sixth Amendment.
ETA: I’m not sure if this is what happened in the Louise Woodward case, though.
In PA, trial court judges can “throw out” a jury’s guilty verdict if the evidence was insufficient to convict (fails to prove an element of the crime charged) or is against the weight of the evidence (shocks one’s conscience).
Also if a judge set’s aside a jury’s verdict of guilty the prosecution is allowed to appeal without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy since all they’re seeking to do is reinstate the original verdict.
Not sure why you’d think that juries were the sole judges of guilt or innocence in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence – they are not.
In general, the jury is the finder of fact. The judge’s role is to decide on the law.
Imagine the case of Abe, who is accused of stealing a Visa-branded debit card belonging to someone else and using it to buy a cordless drill. He is arrested and charged with credit card fraud. He admits having a cordless drill in his possession but says he found it, and denies buying it with anything, stolen card or otherwise. The clerk says she remembers selling that model of cordless drill to an Asian man and Abe is Asian. The store security guard confidently identifies Abe as the only customer in the store at the time the stolen card was used. The owner of the debit card says he remembers Abe specifically hanging around his table when the card was stolen but didn’t see him, or anyone, actually take it.
The jury’s job is to determine what facts actually happened. If they believe the clerk and the guard then they can find that Abe was the one who used the card. If they don’t believe the guard and the clerk, but believe Abe, then they can find that Abe didn’t use the card. These are questions of fact.
The judge’s job will include determining whether a per-paid debit card counts as “credit card fraud” merely because it has a Visa logo and transactions processed through the Visa network. In other words, even though the jury finds Abe used the card, that conduct may not constitute the crime of “credit card fraud.” This determination is a matter of law.
The judge can also determine if the evidence meets a minimal standard. For example, let’s say the guard doesn’t appear at trial. The jury hears the clerk testify that she remembers selling a cordless drill to an Asian man, and the card’s owner testify that he remembers Abe specifically hanging around his table when the card was stolen, but that’s all. The arresting officer testifies that a cordless drill was found in Abe’s possession.
The standard for reasonable doubt generally requires that the prosecution’s evidence eliminate all reasonable scenarios except for guilt. If those are the only facts before the jury, then the judge can say, “No reasonable finder of fact could reach a verdict of guilty.” If a jury does, they were unreasonable as a matter of law. No evidence definitively ties Abe to the use of the card.
In that scenario, surely the case should not go to the jury at all? If there isn’t sufficient evidence to convict - e.g. no evidence has been led on an element of the offence - what is the point in asking the jury to deliberate?
If, when the prosecution closes its case, some essential element has not bee proved, can’t a PA judge dismiss the charge there and then?
Bricker, if it really is as simple and cut and dry as you say, then why can a judge only find “as a matter of law” that the jury did not have enough evidence to preclude reasonable doubt, and not the other way around? What specifically within the law gives the judge a power to find “as a matter of law” that the jury was wrong when they turn in a guilty verdict, but not for a not guilty verdict? What if the judge honestly thinks that there was no reasonable doubt and that legally a jury should not have been able to come to a not guilty verdict based on the evidence provided?
It’s easy to forget, but our system of justice is adversarial. That means that the judge, despite what you might see on tv is essentially passive and shuts the fuck up unless he is asked for a ruling or is required to intervene for some reason.
In this sort of situation, it is the job of defense counsel to make a motion for acquittal either at the close of the state’s case or some point thereafter. However if defense counsel is a lazy ignorant slug and fails to do this and the jury of brain dead zombies still returns a guilty verdict, the court is now required to intervene.
This is however essentially a factual issue. The standard is basically what would be used for a motion for summary judgement. The court gives the evidence presented by the State the most favorable but reasonable weight it can and asks if a rational jury could, on that basis, find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you’re interested, the applicable rule in NJ is 3:18-2
Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean much w/o the annotations and you’re not going to find those online.
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution secures the right to trial by jury in criminal matters. If the jury acquits it would be considered a Constitutional violation for the court to set aside that verdict and impose a guilty verdict.
Courts are generally bound by the jury’s findings of fact. The only exception that comes to mind is if the defense tampers with the jury. In such cases it is considered that the defendant never really was in jeopardy of being convicted and a new trial can be ordered even after a “not guilty” verdict from a rigged jury.
This concerns a civil trial, more properly it would be as below, Ohio’s;
RULE 29. Motion for Acquittal
(A) Motion for judgment of acquittal. The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses. The court may not reserve ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case.
Similar in nature to a Motion for a Directed verdict by the defense.
Yes, the judge could issue a directed verdict, which means it wouldn’t reach the jury at all.
However, for judicial effeciency, a judge might wisely let it go to the jury first. If the jury finds the ‘wrong’ answer, then the judge can still issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
If the case gets appealed and the judges ruling overturned, then there has already been a full trial with a jury verdict, and the jury verdict can simply be reinstituted. Otherwise, an entirely new trial would have to take place.
Actually, I think I screwed up double-jeopardy considerations in this answer but will have to come back later as I have to run. Maybe someone else will clear it up in the meantime.
I do have to correct myself about the criminal trial aspect, it was about civil trials as listed, Missouri:
Freedom of speech–evidence of truth in defamation actions–province of jury.
Section 8. That no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communicated: that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty; and that in all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in suits and prosecutions for libel the jury, under the direction of the court, determine the law and the facts.
