Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SUSSA
There's already a procedural device for this: judgment non obstante veredicto. But it relies completely on a weighing of the evidence, not an examination of the jury's rationale in coming to whatever decision they came to.

And the standard for rendering a JNOV is high enough that it pretty much never happens, and when it does, it happens in civil suits. Basically, if the jury came to a decision, based on the evidence, that a reasonable person could come to in the capacity of a trier of fact, their verdict will not be disturbed. When you factor in the reasonable doubt standard that the prosecution already has to overcome, it becomes clear that a reasonable jury could find someone not guilty in pretty much any criminal case.

Even in civil suits, where the standard of proof is a mere preponderance, JNOV is used very sparingly, and is usually accompanied by a new trial, not a simple reversal. The odds of a JNOV being granted in that second trial, if a second jury comes to the same conclusion, is so small as to be negligible.

129 posted on 02/18/2006 8:12:10 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: Gordongekko909

In criminal cases in the U.S., only the defendant (and not the prosecution) may move for a J.N.O.V.


140 posted on 02/18/2006 8:25:40 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson