Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Hiawatha Bray, 2 Mar 2005 @ 5:17am

   
   

   Judges and juries

   I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, judges have always been entitled to overrule jury verdicts--at least they can overrule guilty verdicts. The idea is that juries are imperfect and ignorant of the law. They can sometimes, with the best will in the world, reach verdicts which are manifestly unreasonable. In such cases, a judge can rely on his understanding of the law and the evidence, and say that the jury is so far off the beam that justice compels him to intervene.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2005 @ 5:21am

   
   

   Re: Judges and juries

   That is exactly correct, but I want to add that this applies to civil trials as well, where there is no guilty verdict. Basically, the standard is that a judge will not overrule a jury's determination of conflicting facts, but will overrule a jury's application of the law.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Precision Blogger, 2 Mar 2005 @ 8:00am

   
   

   There's still apoint to jury trials, don't worry

   The judge's decision regarding the sister does not weaken the jury system. Judges have a discretion that can be abused, but is very necessary, for the precise reason that jurors are supposed to be ordinary citizens not versed in the law.
   
   After a verdict is rendered, the jdge can decide that no reasonable evidence was presented by the prosecution to support the verdict; the verdict is then thrown out.
   
   This happens more often BEFORE jury deliberation. Defense moves for a directed verdict and the judge throws the case out. But judges may wait until after deliberation; either they need time to decide, or they hope the jury will make the right decision and save them the effort.
   
   Among other things, this check-and-balance prevents a silver-tongued prosecutor from swaying a jury despite every lack of evidence. There ARE incredibly persuasive lawyers around; I listened to one in amazement the one time I was a juror.
   - Precision Blogger
   http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   DV Henkel-Wallace, 2 Mar 2005 @ 8:05am

   
   

   Re: Judges and juries

   I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, judges have always been entitled to overrule jury verdicts

   This is a relatively new phenomenon. It's been a long time since I lived in Massachusetts, but in matters like this it generally hews to English tradition, which over centuries gave the jury primacy (a protection which was dismantled in Britain over the past few years by the way). I attended high school in Boston and one thing we did was study this system. I would be surprised, although not astonished, if this had changed.

   Traditionally not only the defendant but even the law can be ruled on by the jury (this is called Jury Nullification -- check out some interesting references here or search the web for innumerable pages by cranks on both sides of the issue). As you can see if you follow the reference this is enshrined in the constitutions of several states and was affirmed right at the start of the new republic.

   This is true in California as well. However there are aggressive steps to dismantle it by stealth (hence the cranks). Judges explicitly instruct juries to rule only on the matters presented in court and specifically only on guilt/non-guilt. If you advocate ruling on the question, or even consult the text of the law, you can be thrown off the jury -- illegal, but who's going to fight it?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   Jeff R, 2 Mar 2005 @ 8:19am

   
   

   Can override guilty verdicts only

   The judge can set aside guilty verdicts when the law does not support such a finding. Likewise, a jury can find a defendant not-guilty even when the facts say they should be found guilty (jury nullification, as discussed in other comments).

   What neither side can do is override the other to find a defendant guilty. This is another check and balance and a GoodThing(tm).
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Brian McWilliams, 2 Mar 2005 @ 9:21am

   
   

   They had the dirt on Jessica

   I blogged something about this today here. Seems that prosecutors had plenty of dirt to prove Jessica's involvement, including an incriminating to-do list with her name all over it. But, due to a legal technicality that's beyond me, the evidence was not admissible.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]