Judge 'directing' a jury

[pip t]

Question for the legal bods in here!

I've heard, on varied news reports in the past that "The judge directed the jury to find 'x' "

I'm curious - under what circumstances can a judge direct a jury to find something?

And on a more philosophical point, if the judge has the power to direct the jury, what is the point of the jury being there in the first place?

[ScoobyChris]

I am not a legal bod (far from it ), but I did jury service last year so I'll throw my experience into the mix.

The jury's role is to decide (unanimously) if the defendant is guilty/not-guilty on each of the charges presented and before the jury retire, the judge "directs" the jury as to what each charge means in the context of the law. He/she is impartial in that they don't influence what the jury decides, but they do set the parameters and guidance in the points the jury should be satisfying themselves on as they consider a verdict.

Chris

[psi310398]

I think in the OP's context, it actually means where the judge instructing the jury to reach a certain verdict e.g. the judge tells the jury to find the defendant not guilty. I'd be interested to know, too.

[rgf100]

I suspect it only happens when it's clear the defendant isn't guilty of the crime charged, on a point of law rather than a judgement of credibility. Presumably because something new came to light during the trial, or because it shouldn't really have gone to trial.

[TTmonkey]

The judge knows the law, and sometimes a situation exists during a trial when a judge has to effectively instruct a verdict because the law requires it.

[pip t]

psi310398 said:

I think in the OP's context, it actually means where the judge instructing the jury to reach a certain verdict e.g. the judge tells the jury to find the defendant not guilty. I'd be interested to know, too.

Yes, that is precisely what I meant - sorry, should have been clearer!

[pip t]

TTmonkey said:

The judge knows the law, and sometimes a situation exists during a trial when a judge has to effectively instruct a verdict because the law requires it.

Do you have any examples of that?

I'm interested - I'd always thought the jury's job was to decide whether it has been proven that the defendant has broken any given law? Surely the law can't require that someone is found guilty/innocent if the evidence is not sufficient?

[anonymous-user]

IANAL, however Judge can direct to acquit when they know there cannot be a safe conviction. They cannot direct to convict.

Other than that there are judge's directions, which are pieces of guidance to the jury before they retire, on the questions they need to answer.

[rgf100]

Having done some reading - the directions are actually optional, juries can and have ignored them.

[TTmonkey]

pip t said:

TTmonkey said:

The judge knows the law, and sometimes a situation exists during a trial when a judge has to effectively instruct a verdict because the law requires it.

Do you have any examples of that?

I'm interested - I'd always thought the jury's job was to decide whether it has been proven that the defendant has broken any given law? Surely the law can't require that someone is found guilty/innocent if the evidence is not sufficient?

I don't have a direct example, I'm sure someone will be along soon with one.

[turbotim43]

rgf100 said:

I suspect it only happens when it's clear the defendant isn't guilty of the crime charged, on a point of law rather than a judgement of credibility. Presumably because something new came to light during the trial, or because it shouldn't really have gone to trial.

Or you are in America www.statesman.com/news/crime--law/texas-judge-inte...

[TTmonkey]

Wiki said


Directed verdict

In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.

A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues.

[psi310398]

turbotim43 said:

Or you are in America www.statesman.com/news/crime--law/texas-judge-inte...

I might be wrong but I dimly recall that, in some jurisdictions in the USA (New York comes to mind), a judge can overturn a not guilty verdict if he/she thinks it is perverse, and substitute it with a guilty verdict. Not order a retrial, but simply negate the verdict.

[pip t]

rgf100 said:

Having done some reading - the directions are actually optional, juries can and have ignored them.

Ah right, I see, thank you, that makes sense.

[pip t]

TTmonkey said:

Wiki said


Directed verdict

In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.

A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues.

Then what is the point of having a jury present at all? Or a system of jury trial? If a judge can essentially dismiss a valid jury? (I understand why they can dismiss a jury if there is a conflict of interest etc)

Though another poster suggesting the direction is optional and a jury can ignore it would make sense. Sort of?!

[colin_p]

Jury nullification is an interesting concept.

Basically, you have a right as a Juror and Jury to completely ignore what the Judge tries to steer you towards.

I've never been called to do Jury service but apparently telling the court you are aware of it and would use it can get you out of Jury service, apparently. I've no idea if this is actually true but from what I've gleaned the legal machine really does not like it or mention it.

I can't think of any circumstances (but I'm sure other PH's could) what laws or crimes where nullification you quite rightly stick two fingers up at bad law(s).

.....maybe a fair few libel cases would?

[vonhosen]

pip t said:

TTmonkey said:

Wiki said


Directed verdict

In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.

A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues.

Then what is the point of having a jury present at all? Or a system of jury trial? If a judge can essentially dismiss a valid jury? (I understand why they can dismiss a jury if there is a conflict of interest etc)

Though another poster suggesting the direction is optional and a jury can ignore it would make sense. Sort of?!

So what do you think is likely to happen if the jury goes against the judge's direction & throws a complete curve ball verdict finding somebody guilty where no reasonable jury applying the law correctly could convict?
Appeal against conviction granted (where there won't be any jury involved) ?
By directing they are trying to ensure there isn't a miscarriage of justice or unnecessary waste of public funds.

[4x4Tyke]

The Judge can direct a not guilty verdict, this can happen after the prosecution has presented a case, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove the case. The defence doesn't even need to present. We see these reported as cases 'collapsing'.

[pip t]

vonhosen said:

So what do you think is likely to happen if the jury goes against the judge's direction & throws a complete curve ball verdict finding somebody guilty where no reasonable jury applying the law correctly could convict?
Appeal against conviction granted (where there won't be any jury involved) ?
By directing they are trying to ensure there isn't a miscarriage of justice or unnecessary waste of public funds.

To be honest, I hadn't considered that, and perhaps naively, I'd always assumed some kind of jury at any appeal as well.

I have (fortunately!) very little experience of the courts, and it was a genuine question, as in my knowledge I'd always assumed a jury was advised of the law, but could reach an independent verdict if it wished. The idea of a judge directing the jury to find guilty or innocent seemed to go against the idea of being tried by a jury of peers.

4x4Tyke said:

The Judge can direct a not guilty verdict, this can happen after the prosecution has presented a case, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove the case. The defence doesn't even need to present. We see these reported as cases 'collapsing'.

Right, I see. Thanks

[psi310398]

colin_p said:

Jury nullification is an interesting concept.

Basically, you have a right as a Juror and Jury to completely ignore what the Judge tries to steer you towards.

I've never been called to do Jury service but apparently telling the court you are aware of it and would use it can get you out of Jury service, apparently. I've no idea if this is actually true but from what I've gleaned the legal machine really does not like it or mention it.

I can't think of any circumstances (but I'm sure other PH's could) what laws or crimes where nullification you quite rightly stick two fingers up at bad law(s).

.....maybe a fair few libel cases would?

Didn't the jury act perversely in the Ponting Official Secrets trial and acquit him?