When deciding whether or not Zacharias Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty, the jury had to answer four questions. In order to be found eligible, the answer to all four questions had to be “yes.”
The first question asked was whether or not Moussaoui was eighteen years of age or older at the time of the offense. Since Moussaoui was born on May 30, 1968, there is no doubt that he was eighteen. In fact, I’m fairly certain that the defense would have conceded the point.
However, what if (for some inexplicable reason) the jury came back with a no on this question. Can the judge reverse a clearly counter-factual jury finding?
Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiracy. If the jury had unanimously answered any question as to his death penalty eligibility in the negative, it would have resulted in an automatic life sentence. If they had found that he was under 18, it would basically have been a case of jury nullification. The judge would have to sentence him to life in prison.
Another interesting point is what would have happened had the jury not been able to come to a unanimous agreement as to his eligibility or ineligibility. The prosecution and defense were not in agreement as to what would have happened in that case. Prosecutors said that it would have been a mistrial and that they could retry him, and his defense counsel said it should be an automatic life sentence. It’s a moot point now, though.
I should rephrase this; of the six counts, the prosecution went forward on four, of which three carried the death penalty. The jury would have had to unanimously agree that he is eligible for the death penalty on any one of those three.
Not available to the prosecution. The defendant can move for the federal criminal equivalent of a JNOV, which is a Motion for Judgment of Accquital under FRCrP 29, but the prosecution just has to bite the bullet.
Ring v. Arizona stands for the proposition that a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, cannot so much as find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty; any such finding must affirmatively be made by a jury.
Judgment Notwithstanding Of Verdict, also known as a directed verdict. The judge has the power to set aside a guilty verdict if s/he finds as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty. I believe it’s usually done on a defense motion but I think the judge can do it on his own motion as well.
Yep. In English, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. But since lawyers tend to be Latin-hogs, JNOV really stands for judgment non obstante veredictum.
Thanks, all, for the explanation. I recognize that it’s important that the finder of fact be the finder of fact, but it still seems a bit hard to swallow that we the people have no recourse. (But then, if we did, jury nullification wouldn’t work, I guess.)