Judge direction

Ken.

I've always wondered about this and today's events make me ask the following.

A judge directs a jury to find a person not guilty.

Do the jury actually have to find the person not guilty?.

What would happen if the jury ignored the judge and found the person(s) guilty despite the direction?

Victor

This is still before the courts: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/ex-anglo-chief-se%C3%A1n-fitzpatrick-acquitted-in-long-running-loans-case-1.3093217

Ken.

Well that case is what got me asking but it's not the first time a judge has directed a jury like this.

GM228

It's known as a "directed verdict", where the judge has held that no reasonable jury could reach a decision otherwise.

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote: »

It's known as a "directed verdict", where the judge has held that no reasonable jury could reach a decision otherwise.

That implies the judge was fearful he had an 'unreasonable' jury if he felt it necessary to direct them

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Can the judge disregard the verdict if they don't follow his directions?

I suppose it is a kind of reverse jury nullification scenario.

I don't believe so, the DPP vs Nally [2007] 3 IR 130 case comes to mind, didn't it hold that such "directions" of guilt or not guilty were infact opinions of the judge.

The authorities, both in this and the neighbouring jurisdiction, make it abundantly clear that the jurors, who swear an oath to deliver a verdict in accordance with the evidence, must retain the ultimate power to determine issues of guilt or innocence. That must of necessity, include the power to return a verdict which conflicts with the opinion of the learned trial judge, however experienced that judge may be. The question whether the amount of force used is objectively reasonable is quintessentially a matter of fact for the jury

Whilst the case dealth with the unconstitutional direction of a verdict of guilt, the part in bold suggests it also applies to directions of not guilty even though it was held a judge can "direct" a not guilty charge, open to correction though.

P.S The brain ain't working too well today, possibly because hullaballoo has it stumped over court rules

Peregrinus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That implies the judge was fearful he had an 'unreasonable' jury if he felt it necessary to direct them

The idea is to save the jury's time (and everyone's time).

Remember, the onus of proof is on the prosecution. If the prosecution has finished presenting its case, and they have failed to present any evidence on an essential element of the charge, then the accused has no case to answer and doesn't have to present any evidence in defence or rebuttal. He simply asks the judge to direct that the charge is not supported by the prosecution evidence, and that the jury must acquit. Everybody gets to go home early.

In theory, possibly, the jury could convict - I don't know if there's an authority that says otherwise - but in the circumstances an appeal against conviction would certainly succeed.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

In theory, possibly, the jury could convict - I don't know if there's an authority that says otherwise - but in the circumstances an appeal against conviction would certainly succeed.

Would the DPP vs Davis [1993] 2 I.R. 1 case and the Nally case mentioned earlier make it more than just a theory, as I said it dealt with a direction of guilt but both seem to suggest that the jury has final say in either case (although you are correct an appeal would succeed) especially when there are mentions of a judges direction "usurps the function of the jury" as per Davis, but is the right to "withdraw the case from the jury and direct them to enter a verdict of not guilty" actually considered a direction or an opinion? I have found Nally a bit confusing on that point. And if it is a direction rather than an opinion would it invalidate a ruling otherwise or perhaps be a case of contempt? Directed verdicts is an area I have not had a chance to look at in any detail yet.

NUTLEY BOY

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That implies the judge was fearful he had an 'unreasonable' jury if he felt it necessary to direct them

I don't think that this is conceptually correct.

A directed verdict has no element of a judge's impression that a particular jury might be unreasonable. Guilty verdicts of unreasonable juries are usually reviewed by the Court of Appeal on the basis, inter alia, that a reasonable jury properly directed would or could not have reached a particular guilty verdict.

The basic concept, as I have understood it, is that at the conclusion of a prosecution case a judge (nudged appropriately by defence counsel in the absence of the jury) may take the objective view that the requisite standard of proof has not been reached. The paradoxical danger of otherwise allowing such a case to go to a jury is that they might actually render a guilty verdict.