The Jury, pt. 2: a technical follow-up: what if a judge disagrees with the jury?

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/