The Jury pt2: if a judge disagrees with the jury
In
a previous introductory post we discussed what a jury is and what
its tasks are in a common law system. That post was meant to give a
general background about this institution by a comparative
perspective, but didn't analyze in depth (for reason of time and
space) every single power given to the jurors nor every single aspect
involving the jury's tasks and responsibilities.
The
idea of deepening some aspects about this important topic was given
to me when a friend of mine asked me: “ can a judge disagree with a
jury's verdict?”. He also graduated from law school and the idea
that a lay jury, ignoring the basic legal concepts, may decide the
fate of a trial conflicted with one of the supreme principles of the
Italian system: the judge is the peritus peritorum, i.e.
the expert among the experts \ the supreme expert.
In
this post we will try to analyze more in depth this topic,
introducing some important law concepts: “judgment notwithstanding
verdict”, “directed verdict”, “judgment as matter of law”
and “jury instructions”.
Judgment notwithstanding verdict
A
judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a judgement
entered
by a judge
after
a jury
has
returned a verdict
that
cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence
presented
in court, or that is paradoxical or contradicts itself. It is also
known as JNOV or judgment non
obstante verdicto.
The
motion, introduced by one party, is based on the argument that no
reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that the jury
actually reached, based on the evidence and the law that governs the
case.
A
judge in a civil case (such as torts or personal injury) may enter a
JNOV in favor of either party, while in a criminal case may not
enter such judgment to convict a defendant after he\she has been
found innocent by a jury, for to do so would violate the defendant's
Sixth Amendment right. However, a criminal judge could grant a
motion to set aside judgment, similar to JNOV, if no reasonable jury
could have found the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Directed verdict and Judgment as matter of law
A
directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after
determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for
a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion. The trial court
may grant a directed verdict either sua
sponte or
upon a motion by either party. A directed verdict may be granted at
any time, but usually occurs after at least one party has been fully
heard. A
directed verdict is only used when the evidence for either the
plaintiff or the defendant in a case is so weak that the law cannot
possibly support a finding in favor of that party. In these cases,
the directed verdict is entered in favor of the other party.
In
many U.S. courts, the concept of “judgment
as a matter of law”
(JMOL) has largely replaced the use of directed verdicts. A judgment
as a matter of law is a judgment made by the judge, not the jury, but
it is based on the same principle as a directed verdict: the evidence
for one party is so minute that, as a matter of law, that party
cannot win a court case based on that evidence.
This
procedure is not dissimilar to a “motion
for summary judgment”: in
this case one party
asks for a judgment as a matter of law, and supports the request by
showing that, even if all the evidence collected in discovery
up
to that point is taken in favor of the opposing party, there still is
not enough evidence to support the opposing party’s case to justify
sending the case to the jury. Therefore, argues the typical motion
for summary judgment, the judge should rule as a matter of law that
the party making the motion should win.
Motions
for a directed verdict are rarely granted, but they are frequently
made, because the rules
of procedure in
many civil and criminal courts state that, if a motion for directed
verdict is not made, the party that failed to make it might be unable
to appeal
if
he or she ends up losing the case or being dissatisfied with the
verdict,
the judgement
in
a civil case, or the sentence
in
a criminal case.
Motions
for a directed verdict are regulated by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (rule50) and by Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure (rule29).
All
three kinds of judgments (directed verdict, JMOL and JNOV) are
therefore similar and all depend on the argument that no reasonable
jury could have return a particular result and so the result should
be overturned. The point in time at which a party makes this argument
– before trial, during trial, or after the verdict has been reached
– determines whether the argument is called a motion for a directed
verdict, a motion
for summary judgment,
or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Jury instructions
The
jury instructions are the set of legal rules a jury ought to follow
when deciding a case. These
instructions are given to the jury by the jury instructor, who
usually reads them aloud to the jury. They are often the subject of
discussion of the case, how they will decide who is guilty, and are
given by the judge in order to make sure their interests are
represented and nothing prejudicial is said.
Forty-eight
states have a model set of instructions (Texas and West Virginia
being the exceptions), usually called “pattern jury instruction”.
Here is the link to the Illinois pattern jury instruction for both
civilc cases and criminal cases : (civil pattern; criminal pattern).
At this point, I hope your doubts about this topic have been
clarified.
Next
jury-related topic will be “jury nullification”; but this a
subject that deserves an all new post for itself!*sources: http://www.law.cornell.edu/; http://www.rotlaw.com/?l=hea; http://www.law.com/jsp/law/index.jsp; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Texas is almost always an exception.
ReplyDeleteand usually, the bad exception!
ReplyDelete