Case Law Disregard: Verdict's Impact

The legal system is a complex and fascinating topic, and one that often sparks debate and discussion. One such topic of discussion is the role of case law in shaping verdicts. Case law refers to the use of past court decisions to inform how other laws should be applied in similar situations. It is an important aspect of the legal system, providing guidance and precedent for judges and juries. However, what happens when case law is not applied to a verdict? Can a verdict stand without it? These are the questions we will explore, delving into the intricacies of the legal system and the factors that influence verdicts. By examining real-world examples and considering different perspectives, we can gain a deeper understanding of the role of case law and its impact on the justice system as a whole.

The role of the jury in a trial

In a criminal trial, the jury hears the charges against the defendant and the facts of the case, including evidence and witness testimonies presented by the prosecution and the defense. The jury then deliberates in a separate room, discussing the evidence and their beliefs about the case, before rendering a verdict. The verdict must be unanimous in most criminal cases.

The jury's role is crucial in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The jury is selected through a process called "voir dire", where attorneys and the judge ask potential jurors questions to ensure their ability to serve impartially. The goal is to have a diverse jury that represents a fair cross-section of the defendant's community. While attorneys can reject jurors, they cannot shape the jury in a way that appears biased toward a particular race, age, or gender.

One of the benefits of a jury trial is that it acts as a check on prosecutorial power. Prosecutors must consider what a diverse group of jurors will conclude based on the evidence presented, which helps prevent unreasonable charges. Additionally, a jury trial prevents a single judge from having too much control over the outcome, reducing the potential for bias or influence from public opinion.

However, there are also limitations to jury trials. Jurors are laypeople who may struggle to understand complex legal concepts and apply them consistently. They may also have difficulty staying engaged and attentive throughout the entire trial.

The impact of a non-unanimous verdict

In law, a verdict is a formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to them by a judge. In criminal cases, the verdict is either "not guilty" or "guilty", except in Scotland, where the verdict of "not proven" is also available. In civil suits, the jury will find for the plaintiff or the defendant.

A non-unanimous verdict occurs when the jury cannot agree on a unanimous verdict, and it can have several impacts. Firstly, it can lead to a hung jury, where the jury is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous decision. In this case, the judge may declare a mistrial, and the case may be retried or resolved through a plea bargain. A hung jury does not mean that the defendant is acquitted, and retrying the defendant does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Secondly, a non-unanimous verdict can result in a compromise verdict, where some jurors surrender their conscientious convictions on one issue in exchange for others doing the same on another issue. However, compromise verdicts are not permitted as they do not command the approval of the entire jury panel.

Additionally, in some states, non-unanimous verdicts are allowed for civil trials. Twenty-seven states permit non-unanimous verdicts in civil cases, with the requirement that at least five out of six jurors or nine out of twelve jurors agree on the verdict.

In conclusion, a non-unanimous verdict can have various consequences, including a hung jury, mistrial, compromise verdict, or a valid verdict in certain civil cases. The specific impact depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, with different requirements for criminal and civil proceedings.

The process of appealing a verdict

In the US, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to them by a judge. If the defendant is found guilty, they can choose to appeal the case to the local Court of Appeals. The process of appealing a verdict is as follows:

Filing an Appeal

After a court convicts and sentences a criminal defendant, the defendant may file an appeal to a higher court, asking it to review the lower court's decision for legal errors that may have affected the outcome of the case. An appeal is not another trial but an opportunity for the defendant to try to raise specific errors that might have occurred at trial. A common appeal is that a decision from the judge was incorrect—for example, regarding the suppression of certain evidence or the imposition of a particular sentence. Appeals are complicated and can sometimes result in the case going back to the trial court.

Appellate Review

The appellate court reviews the record of the lower court's proceedings to determine whether there are adequate grounds to grant the appeal. The record includes all pre-trial and post-trial motions, all evidence admitted to the court, and a word-for-word transcript of the trial. In addition to analyzing the record, appellate courts also review written briefs submitted by each party.

Writ of Certiorari

Most appeals are final, and the court of appeals decision is usually the final word in the case. However, a litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals or the highest court of a state may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court does not have to grant review and typically agrees to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.

Outcome of Appeal

If the appellate court grants the appeal, it may reverse the lower court's decision in whole or in part. A specific conviction may be reversed, a sentence altered, or a new trial may be ordered if the Appeals Court decides on that particular course of action. If the appellate court denies the appeal, the lower court's decision stands.

The consequences of a mistrial

A mistrial is an invalid trial caused by a fundamental error in law or procedure. When a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again from the beginning, with the selection of a new jury.

Mistrials can occur in both civil and criminal trials. If a jury cannot agree on a verdict, they report back to the judge. The judge may decide that the jury has not deliberated for long enough and instruct them to continue trying. However, if the jury remains deadlocked, a mistrial may be declared.

Civil mistrial

In the case of a civil mistrial, the case is returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then has the option to either retry the lawsuit or drop the case. If the only issue was that the jury could not agree, there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff from refiling the case.

Criminal mistrial

In a criminal mistrial, the case is put on hold while the state decides on the next steps. For serious crimes, the defendant is not released. However, for less serious crimes, the defendant may request bail until a new trial is set.

The prosecution will then review the case and decide to either:

• Dismiss the charges if it appears a second trial by jury will reach the same result
• Offer a plea bargain for serious crimes
• Reset the case for trial

It is important to note that a hung jury or mistrial is not the same as a not-guilty verdict. Retrying a criminal defendant does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Double jeopardy protection begins when a jury is empaneled or sworn and ends when there is a verdict. Therefore, without a verdict, double jeopardy does not apply.

The power of the judge to set aside a verdict

In the context of law, a verdict is a formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to them by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision is simply referred to as a finding. In criminal cases, the verdict is either "not guilty" or "guilty", except in Scotland, where a "not proven" verdict is also possible.

In American state courts, a judge may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. This practice is called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV. A JNOV is only appropriate if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict as a matter of law. For example, if a party enters no evidence on a key element of their case but the jury still finds in their favour, the judge may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that point and reform the judgement.

A judge may also set aside a verdict if they believe there were insufficient facts to support the jury's decision or that the law was not applied correctly. This is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, known as a directed verdict. A JNOV is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.

In civil cases, a judge can grant a JNOV in favour of both plaintiffs and defendants. In some jurisdictions, such as California, a judge can initiate a JNOV without a request from the losing party (also known as sua sponte). A JNOV is rarely granted, and it is not permitted following a jury acquittal in a United States criminal case, as it would violate the defendant's right against double jeopardy and their right to a trial by jury.

In addition to JNOV, there are other circumstances in which a judge can set aside a verdict. For instance, in California, a judge can set aside an order or judgement in family law cases if there was a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This includes situations where an individual misunderstood the facts or the law, was unexpectedly surprised, or failed to act in time because they relied on someone else. However, it is important to note that not having a lawyer is not typically accepted as an excuse for making a mistake.

Frequently asked questions