ipl-logo

Examples Of Directed Verdicts

344 Words2 Pages

A directed verdict occurs in a jury trial when an order is made by a trial judge instructing the jury to return a specific verdict. (Legal Dictionary, 2017) Directed verdicts apply to both civil and criminal trial cases. If a judge feels that the plaintiff has presented all of his or her evidence at trial; however, the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof; therefore, the defendant may move for a directed verdict, also known as a judgment of acquittal. (Hall, 2014) The trial judge reviews the evidence presented by the government; nevertheless, when the judge learns that no reasonable jury could reach any other decision because evidence to support a conviction is inadequate, the judge will enter a directed verdict favoring the defendant. …show more content…

The prosecutions have to present enough evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty; considering, that directed verdicts are rarely granted, judges rather have a jury return a verdict. However, if a motion for directed verdict is granted the jury does not get the chance to deliberate as a matter of fact the jury is discharged. If the motion for directed verdict is denied, the defense may present their case; however, the rules do not change for the prosecution. “A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts” (Massachusetts Court System, 2017). The defendant is not required to present a defense; therefore, the jurors are instructed not to infer guilt because of the absence of the defense. (Hall,

Show More
Related
1757 Words | 8 Pages

Once the magistrate was satisfied that the evidence was capable of satisfying the jury, the accused was committed for trial or sentence to the Supreme Court. Cases committed to a higher court would then be determined by a judge as well as a jury. However, after Mr Lopez pleaded not guilty, he elected to be tried without a jury: section 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 The

Read More
1235 Words | 5 Pages

After listening to both sides present their case the judge will issue a ruling on the defendant’s

Read More
1046 Words | 5 Pages

In the retrial, the jury again favored for

Read More
350 Words | 2 Pages

When it comes to the case Miller V. State, I believe that trial court refused to give the jury instructions regarding the insanity defense, which the defendant wished to have comunicated, because they wanted the jury to be able to decide imoartially. Miller was examined by three medical experts and they concluded that Miller satisfied the M'naughten insanity test when he stabbed Goring. The district court had instructed the jury to determine whether Miller was actually legally insane when he stabbed Goring. They wanted the jury to find proof of insanity at that time, and to also consider Miller's mental condition "before and after the killing to throw light on what Miller's mental condition was at the time of the killing" (Schmalleger

Read More
655 Words | 3 Pages

In the federal courts judgment as a matter of law is governed under Rule 50(a) also commonly known as JMOL. In a JMOL the judge not the jury will find for or against one of the parties in a trial. JMOL is available before the jury begins to deliberate but only after one or both parties have finished presenting their case. After the plaintiff has finished presenting his case including all supporting evidence the defendant has the opportunity to argue that no jury would be in favor of the plaintiff based on such evidence or lack thereof, therefore the court should rule in favor of the defendant. In a motion for JMOL a party is saying that all the evidence and the law supports in the opposing side, if the judge agrees stating that all facts and the law in facts lie with the defendant and the judge grands the motion than the judge will decide on the issue not the jury.

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

The Court noted that future regulation of pretrial stages with the adoption of police codes and other safeguards of fairness might render a stage not critical and vitiate the constitutional need for counsel. Regarding the case at hand, the Court held that violation of the counsel requirement did not necessitate reversal of the conviction. The conviction could be upheld if the prosecution could show by clear and convincing evidence that the in court identification of Wade as the robber was based on the witnesses ' observations of him during the crime. The Court vacated the decision of the Fifth Circuit and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Read More
776 Words | 4 Pages

A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the

Read More
840 Words | 4 Pages

Trial, defined by Dictionary.com (n.d.) states “the examination before a judicial tribunal of the facts put in issue in a cause, often including issues of law as well as those of fact”. A trial is to bring and present information to a tribunal (a court is a form of tribunal) before a jury, judge, or other designated trier, in a formal way. This allows the authorities to adjudicate the claims or the disputes of the accused person in order to attain a resolution to the dispute. (Yale Law Journal, 507) The criminal defendant also has the right to have a public trial or a secret trial depending on the case.

Read More
457 Words | 2 Pages

Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.

Read More
1035 Words | 5 Pages

(Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the

Read More
239 Words | 1 Pages

Once it has been determined that the case is going to trial, it will begin with opening statements by the prosecution and the defense if they so choose. The opening statements will provide an outline of their respective cases. The prosecutor will then begin the next phase of the trial by presenting its case through its evidence and witnesses. To be deemed successful, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. After the prosecution has presented its case and evidence, the defense then presents the case from their perspective.

Read More
471 Words | 2 Pages

They must provide proof beyond reasonable doubt to be proven guilty. I believe that in this movie the jurors were being skeptical of the prosecution's story. This movie was based on a boy who is being accused of murdering his father and the

Read More
195 Words | 1 Pages

Despite this fact the judge ruled that he had no defence, the jury refused to convict him. A jury makes the system more open, that justice has been seen to be done and that the process

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

Read More

More about Examples Of Directed Verdicts

Related Topics

Open Document