So apparently everyone agrees that the verdicts are inconsistent, as would seem to be the case, considering that they concern different aspects of the same action. But the prosecutors say the judge can allow it and that wins the day. My question is, to what extent does the judge have the option to toss out the verdict on such grounds. Or on any grounds, for that matter. I am aware that judges can occasionally overrule juries in cases where they feel that the jury missed the boat, but do they have the right to do this in any instance that they feel like it? And could a judge overturn a verdict if he felt that it was internally inconsistent, as this one was? If so, would it make a difference if the judge felt that the true verdict was the guilty part and not the innocent part? (I imagine that a judge cannot overrule an acquital).
This link is a little jargony, but it does explain the concepts of directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A directed verdict is where the judge doesn’t even bother to let the case go to the jury and decides right then and there. A JNOV is when the judge lets the case go to the jury then decides it was a bad verdict and overrules them.
Thanks for the link. But it seems to deal exclusively with the technical and practical aspects of applying for a “directed verdict”. It does not discuss what the judge must use to guide him in deciding whether to grant the motion.
Not sure of the standards in North Carolina, but in general, directed verdicts and JNOV’s are questions of law. The judge is supposed to look at the evidence and decide whether it is so strong or weak that no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. Both motions are routinely made, but rarely granted.
In the criminal context, the judge can vacate a jury’s guilty verdict, but cannot do the same for a not guilty verdict–if the jury acquits, the defendant walks away from that charge forever. I believe that vacating a guilty verdict results in a new trial, rather than an acquittal.
I think the jury didn’t want to see the man sentenced to death when his accomplice got such a break (or maybe they were football fans, whatever). At any rate, it sounded to me like a comprimise verdict. And, AFAIK, the fact that the comprimise doesn’t make sense wouldn’t necessarily invalidate the verdict. (aint’ law grand?)