If I’m understanding the terminology correctly, a directed verdict would be when the judge in a trial concludes that no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty, and so directs a mandatory verdict of not guilty. Say that the judge does not grant this, and for whatever reason the jury then indeed finds the defendant guilty. Does the defendant have the ability to appeal on that decision by the judge?
I know that appeals decide matters of law and procedure, not matters of fact (which is left to the original trial for the sake of conclusiveness, or whatever the legal term is). The above question is interesting to me, then, as this seems to be a matter of overlap between deciding fact and procedure.
(Asking as a matter of GQ, not GD, though I admit this is inspired by the George Zimmerman trial and the judge’s refusal to throw out the prosecution’s case. But it could as easily be set in (say) the Jim Crow South, where the prosecution might need do no more than say, “why, just look at that boy! The prosecution rests, Your Honor.”)
My first instinct is to say that allowing this sort of appeal would destroy the whole basis of the jury system. After all, an awful lot of defendants feel that the prosecution’s case is ridiculously weak. How can one make an objective point that the prosecution’s case is absurd? But on second thought, that’s exactly what happens when the judge does the “directed verdict” thing. So why not use this as an appeals strategy?
The Appeal will not be based on a Judge’s refusal to issue a DV, DV’s are never mandatory, but discretionary in nature, as it is a basic “Judgment call”. If the weight of the evidence is so weak, that is a basis for the appeal.
Not technically. But essentially. A defendant can appeal the jury verdict based on the argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict. That’s the same question the trial judge considered,mbut it’s not that decision that’s appealed, but the jury verdict.
I may add the more proper term in criminal cases, as you note Zimmerman, would be Judgment of Aquittal, did not look for FL though as to the term;
Ohio;
State v. Coe, 153 Ohio App. 3d 44, 2003-Ohio-2732 – A Rule 29 motion for acquittal is not a prerequisite for challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Cox, this was my source, although it states nothing that I read about an appeal based on a not issued JA, the law is substantial, IMO, that an appeal can NOT be based on that, because there was NO “abuse of discretion” to argue.
Huh, so a bit of my ignorance is fought here – so although the lack of a directed verdict or judgment of acquittal itself isn’t grounds for appeal, the defendant may argue that the prosecution’s evidence itself was lacking? That’s different than my original impression that that particular issue can only be decided by the jury in the original trial.
Yes.. For example, let’s say the prosecution forgot (or couldn’t) prove the substance in question was actually cocaine. A jury might convict because the seller said something like “here’s your coke.”. The appellate court could rule that such a statement is legally insufficient to prove the case.
State v. Bazzy (1993), 86 Ohio App. 3d 546, 548 – “The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal may not be the basis for a reversal on appeal if, from the evidence presented in the state’s case, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of an offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This says that if a Defense Attorney files a Rule 29 Motion and it is denied, that can NOT form the basis of appeal.
Perhaps I’m not following, but that doesn’t look to me what your citation is saying. It appears to set a condition of IF such and such happens, THEN it cannot form the basis for a reversal on appeal. Wouldn’t that imply that if the condition is not met, then it COULD form such a basis?
Here is FL, but I have no Annotations, maybe notallthatbright has some, he is from FL;
Note it says MAY in the text.
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
3.380. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
(a) Timing. If, at the close of the evidence for the state or at the close of all the evidence in the cause, the court is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may, and on the motion of the prosecuting attorney or the defendant shall, enter a judgment of acquittal.
As a general matter, interlocutory appeals (those which precede the rendering of a verdict) are disfavored. In Florida, you cannot appeal the denial of a directed verdict. As lawbuff and procrustus note, however, once the jury returns its decision, the defendant can move for entry of a judgment of acquittal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380. If the motion is denied at that stage the defendant may appeal.
The rule is substantially the same in civil cases; you can move for JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) in a civil case under FLRCP 1.480, and renew it after the verdict if denied.