Can a judge overturn the decision of a jury?

Answer 1

Yes, in a civil trial or in overturning a finding of guilty in a criminal case. A judge cannot overrule a jury's finding that the defendant is not guilty.

"Judgment notwithstanding the verdict" (JNOV) is used when no reasonable jury presented with the evidence at bar could come up with the verdict it came up with.

Of course, the party that "won" the decision of the jury may appeal the JNOV.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 states

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.

The reason the FRCP do not permit a court to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal and enter a jugment of guilty is to preserve the Sixth Amendment guarantee that all criminal defendants shall enjoy the right to a trial by jury as well as to preserve the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.

The reason the FRCP permit a trial court to set aside a jury verdict of guilty and enter one of not guilty, is to preserve the defendant's right not to be convicted of a crime except on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In the interests of justice, no trial court should let stand a verdict of guilty where the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rights apply to state courts as well as to Federal courts because they have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment because they are a fundamental part of our jurisprudence.

Note that these are the Federal court rules; however most state court rules are modeled after the Federal Rules and all will have some variation of the authority to set aside a guilty verdict.

Answer 2

only if appeal has been requested and approve

Any court may seek to distinguish its present case from that of a binding precedent, in order to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal. An appellate court may also propound an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case may distinguish them on the facts.

Answer 3

Yes, based on the offense and the ruling, changes can be done;

Upon ruling, if the people taking an offensive verse you believe it is a too harsh or too soft penalty, they can go to the court, with your presence, and have it be rejustified based on the Jury's decisions.

There are multiple cases in which a decision can be reversed, but once your found not guilty, you cannot be retried for the same offense.

Answer 4

A sentence is imposed by a judge of a court of original jurisdiction. While a judge may disregard some decisions of a jury, the matter of sentencing is usually left at the discretion of the presiding judge. However, the judge's sentence can be appealed to a higher court (appelate level) for review as to its appropriateness and/or its legality.

Answer 5

Absolutely - any person who is subject to a court order can appeal to have it overturned or modified. The appeal judge would look at all the facts - and base their decision on whether to overturn the original order (or maybe vary the terms).

For example - say a judge had banned a person from entering their town centre. This might stop them getting to work (if they relied on public transport) so, the defendant could appeal the original order was too strict. In which case, if the appeal judge agrees, the order could be modified to (for example) ban the defendant between 6pm and 6am. That would allow them to use public transport to get to & from work, and leave them enough time to leave the centre of town within the specified time limit.

However, any appeal must be filed within a statutory period that directly follows the original trial.

Answer 6

yes, it's called an appeal.

However, there's a process that you have to go through. It involves another case, more lawyers, more fees. It called an Appellate Court.

Answer 7

yes