How can a judge have the authority and power to instruct a jury in finding a verdict?
I will defer to my brethren who have done more jury work than me, but the procedural device used is either a directed verdict or a judgement notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).In the first, at the close of evidence, a party essentially says to te judge: they didn’t prove their case- there is no legal basis to support a verdict against me. If the judge agrees, he enters a directed verdict. he doesn’t actually tell the jury to do that.That happens at the close of the plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all evidence.A JNOV happens when the jury deliberates and comes back with a verdict. The losing party files a motion to say that the verdict cannot be supported by law, and when the judge agrees he essentially enters a judgement ignoring what the jury said.There are other post trial motions which change what the jury awards. The most common are additur and remittitur. These are granted when the judge thinks the jury awarded too much or too little in damages or when a party can show a reduction should be made because they are entitled to credits for receiving funds from some other source that th jury could not be told about like settlements from other parties or insurance credits.
Can a judge disregard a jury's verdict?
In criminal cases, there are some relatively narrow circumstances where a judge can reject or vacate a jury verdict of guilty, but not when there is a not guilty verdict. A not guilty jury verdict is sacrosanct and cannot be overturned or appealed by the prosecution. One example of a situation where a judge vacates or refuses to accept a guilty verdict is the discovery of jury misconduct. Another would be if the judge concludes that there was no evidence presented at all as to an essential element of the crime charged - not just weak evidence, but no evidence. This would also mean that the jury convicted in contradiction to their instructions that they must find every element of the charged crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.As pointed out, in civil cases there is something called “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”Both occurrences are rare, but they do happen.
Can a defense attorney ask a jury to nullify a guilty verdict in the State of New York?
Not legally, though in the real world a lawyer can make any argument he wants to a jury. Explicitly telling a jury it can nullify a law by returning a verdict contrary to the evidence is an improper argument. Making such an argument is certain to draw an objection, the objection will be sustained, the jury will be admonished by the court to disregard the argument, the lawyer’s remarks may be stricken from the record, and in extreme cases the judge may order a mistrial, forcing the matter to be tried again before an “untainted” jury (though this is rare). A lawyer making such an argument also faces the possibility of being held in contempt of court and disciplined by the state’s bar committee.None of this, however, should be taken to say that lawyers don’t argue for jury nullification. I have done it indirectly several times. During jury selection I am fond of telling jurors that the law is more than what’s written in a book, that they are the “living law,” and if they return a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case, that verdict can never be questioned, overturned or appealed by anyone, and they can never be sanctioned for returning the verdict they did. I am not straight out telling them they can ignore the written law, but I am strongly implying it. A few times it’s even worked and I’ve never gotten in trouble for doing it.But arguing for jury nullification is illegal and improper in all 50 states, including New York. New Hampshire briefly had a statute allowing lawyers to argue for jury nullification and even having the court instruct a jury about its power to nullify the law, but in 2014 that state’s supreme court overruled it.
Can you sue the jury for pain and suffering for giving you a verdict of guilty?
Um, no. The jury is called upon to make such decisions. Its not their fault you're guilty.
What happens in a hung jury?
i know it means the the jurys cant get the same veridct. but when it happens i heard that the case can just be retired.is that true?i dont think they can retire a case say of murder.does the judge chose his verdict or what?
How do judges feel when they are almost certain that a jury has made the wrong decision? Are they more concerned that the process was good even though the result was not?
This happened once, in a federal police corruption racketeering trial presided over by the judge I was clerking for. The judge was livid with the government prosecutors for their incompetence and furious with the police officers who showed up to support the defendants and intimidate the witnesses. But there was seemingly nothing he could do.The defendants were a number of police officers who would arrest drug addicts and prostitutes, steal their cash and jewelry while they were in lockup, and let them go. No one would take the victims' word over a cop's, and the cop that did confess and cooperate with the investigation . . . well, he became the scapegoat.The judge was furious when the cops were acquitted. He kept saying in chambers, the evidence was overwhelming, OVERWHELMING.The judge was livid with the government for screwing up the case. I don't remember exactly what they did wrong, but I think they failed to disclose some exculpatory evidence. He said he knew that one of the jurors was going to acquit. Most of all, he was disgusted by the off-duty cops (some of whom who were on paid desk leave pending the investigation) for showing up every day in court to sit in the front row to support the defendants and intimidate the witnesses. He kept saying over and over how disgraceful it was.One thing I do remember was that during jury selection, the judge got really, really pissed off at the defense counsel for trying to use their peremptory challenges to eliminate minorities from the jury. He called them up to sidebar, where he screamed at them in a whisper (so the jury pool couldn't hear) about their unconstitutional, dirty tactics. If you have never heard a judge read someone the riot act sotto voce, it is something to behold. I seriously thought the judge was going to pop a blood vessel in his temple.
When there is a trial, why is there a jury and a judge if the judge does the sentencing?
Let’s start from the beginning: in a criminal jury trial, the judge’s role is to be the “trier of law” and is best analogized to a referee in a sporting match. It’s the judge’s job to evaluate the law and decide whether the matter may be tried at all, which claims may be tried, which evidence may be presented, etc. During the trial, the judge also rules on objections and various legal motions. The judge’s role is important, because it goes without saying that every society wants its laws to be applied correctly and fairly.The jury’s role, however, is more important. The jury acts as the “trier of fact,” and gets to decide whether the facts as alleged by the state have been proven. It takes the facts as presented by the parties and applies them to the law as directed by the judge. Think of a trial like a board game: the judge explains all the rules, and the jury applies the rules of the game to the facts presented and determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.Now, to sentencing. It is generally, but not always, the case that a judge handles sentencing. For example, most states require juries to determine the accused’s sentence in death penalty cases (some states make the jury determine eligibility or make a recommendation of death), and some jurisdictions allow juries to play a role in sentencing for other crimes, such as by making a sentencing recommendation. But in the federal courts and most states, a jury determines guilt, and a judge assesses punishment. The reason for this division is sensible: sentences are governed by statute (often extremely complex statutes or systems), and a judge is less likely to be arbitrary given his/her having handled similar cases in the past. But again, the jury’s role is significant. For example, suppose a case in which a defendant is accused of second-degree murder, but is instead convicted of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide: the former might carry a sentence of 20 years to life, while the latter might carry a sentence of 1–15 years. Thus, the jury has already played a significant role in determining the accused’s sentence, as absent legal error or exceptional circumstances, a judge is likely (and in some jurisdictions required) to impose a sentence within the prescribed range.