does a judge have the deciding say in a case?

Andy From Sligo

if someone goes to trial and there is a resounding verdict from the jury (whether the verdict from the jury be guilty or not guilty) can the judge have the final say/rule?

No particular reason I am asking for, I am just curious.

DontThankMe

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

if someone goes to trial and there is a resounding verdict from the jury (whether the verdict from the jury be guilty or not guilty) can the judge have the final say/rule?

No particular reason I am asking for, I am just curious.

Jury decides the verdict and the judge decides the sentence for the person if they are found guilty. In a non-jury court the judge decides if they are guilty or not guilty and sentences them accordingly which is what happens in the special criminal court.

nuac

Mod
Leaving open for general debate

Andy From Sligo

so even if a jury have deciced - but the judge has his doubts .. or feel that the jury or whitnesses have been somehow threatened by someone .. he/she still have to remain impartial and go with the verdict of the jury then?

Can he at least say voice his/her concerns if he/she thinks the jury is wrong or have made the wrong choice?

Peregrinus

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so even if a jury have deciced - but the judge has his doubts .. or feel that the jury or whitnesses have been somehow threatened by someone .. he/she still have to remain impartial and go with the verdict of the jury then?

Can he at least say voice his/her concerns if he/she thinks the jury is wrong or have made the wrong choice?

No. The whole point of the jury system is that the jury makes the decision on the evidence presented to them.

What the judge can do is decide that the evidence presented is grossly insufficient - that no reasonable jury could possibly convict on the evidence the prosecution has presented. In that situation he can withdraw the case from the jury, so they never get to pass a verdict. An acquittal results. But if he doesn't do that, if he lets the case to go the jury, then the jury's decision is final (subject to appeal to a higher court).

If the jury acquits, the judges views on whether they should have acquitted or not are irrelvant, and it is generally considered improper for a judge to make a comment about this. There is no appeal against an acquittal.

seagull

What's the procedure if there's suspicion of witness tampering? Does the case get withdrawn and then resubmitted at a later date?

Sleeper12

Andy From Sligo wrote:

Can he at least say voice his/her concerns if he/she thinks the jury is wrong or have made the wrong choice?

He has his say to some extent. Not on the guilty part but in the sentence. He has the option to give minimum allowable by law. In manslaughter this can be a suspended sentence.

I think the defendant can appeal the verdict & sentence.

wexie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has his say to some extent.

Do judges not also get to instruct the jury in certain things? Or is that just in strict technicalities rather than the judges opinion?

hullaballoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The whole point of the jury system is that the jury makes the decision on the evidence presented to them.

What the judge can do is decide that the evidence presented is grossly insufficient - that no reasonable jury could possibly convict on the evidence the prosecution has presented. In that situation he can withdraw the case from the jury, so they never get to pass a verdict. An acquittal results. But if he doesn't do that, if he lets the case to go the jury, then the jury's decision is final (subject to appeal to a higher court).

If the jury acquits, the judges views on whether they should have acquitted or not are irrelvant, and it is generally considered improper for a judge to make a comment about this. There is no appeal against an acquittal.

There is under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.

I think we may be the only common law jurisdiction to have abolished double jeopardy but I am very much open to correction.

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.

I think we may be the only common law jurisdiction to have abolished double jeopardy but I am very much open to correction.

England & Wales abolished double jeopardy to an extent in response to the case of Stephen Lawrence’s killers (some alleged, some subsequently proven).

Purple Mountain

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so even if a jury have deciced - but the judge has his doubts .. or feel that the jury or whitnesses have been somehow threatened by someone .. he/she still have to remain impartial and go with the verdict of the jury then?

Can he at least say voice his/her concerns if he/she thinks the jury is wrong or have made the wrong choice?

There was a case a few years ago in England where a soap actor was acquitted of sexual assault.
Read the link below in relation to the judge's comments after acquittal.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/coronation-street-star-andrew-lancel-cleared-of-child-sex-charges-8652834.html%3famp

p15574

Doesn’t it happen, though, that judges sometimes instruct a jury to find the defendant not guilty?

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.

I think we may be the only common law jurisdiction to have abolished double jeopardy but I am very much open to correction.

We have not abolished double jeopardy though, the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 only made exceptions to the double jeopardy rule for certain categories of serious crimes tried on indictment and only where there is both compelling evidence and a public interest for a re-trial. Double jeopardy still applies to any offence not covered by the 2010 Act and summary trials.

It is worth noting that the 2010 Act aside, it has also been possible since 1947 to have limited with prejudice (for CC trials) and since 2006 without prejudice (for CC and CA trials) rights of appeal on questions of law arising from directed acquittals or where for example the court erroneously excluded compelling evidence.

GM228

p15574 wrote: »

Doesn’t it happen, though, that judges sometimes instruct a jury to find the defendant not guilty?

Yes, this is known as a directed verdict.

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, this is known as a directed verdict.

Aren't juries capable of deciding to refuse a direction, or is that just in the US? Or movies, for that matter!

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

Aren't juries capable of deciding to refuse a direction, or is that just in the US? Or movies, for that matter!

Yes they can, the judges direction is only an opinion.

hullaballoo

GM228 wrote: »

We have not abolished double jeopardy though, the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 only made exceptions to the double jeopardy rule for certain categories of serious crimes tried on indictment and only where there is both compelling evidence and a public interest for a re-trial. Double jeopardy still applies to any offence not covered by the 2010 Act and summary trials.

It is worth noting that the 2010 Act aside, it has also been possible since 1947 to have limited with prejudice (for CC trials) and since 2006 without prejudice (for CC and CA trials) rights of appeal on questions of law arising from directed acquittals or where for example the court erroneously excluded compelling evidence.

Watering down is tantamount to abolition for a rule like double jeopardy imo.

Giving the State two bites of the cherry where innocence and liberty are at stake is fundamentally wrong. In particular, whatever about the strict legal principles and the supposed capacity for tribunals to approach cases impartially and with an open mind, any second trial is de facto tainted by the determination in the first instance (at the application of the DPP for a retrial) that the new evidence is "compelling".

Never mind that a jury may simply by being alive to current affairs be already aware of entirely prejudicial matters relating to the case.

coylemj

p15574 wrote: »

Doesn’t it happen, though, that judges sometimes instruct a jury to find the defendant not guilty?

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, this is known as a directed verdict.

L1011 wrote: »

Aren't juries capable of deciding to refuse a direction, or is that just in the US? Or movies, for that matter!

GM228 wrote: »

Yes they can, the judges direction is only an opinion.

I was under the impression that a judge's 'direction' (to a jury to return a not guilty verdict) was effectively an order and the trial was abruptly halted there and then.

Has a jury ever said 'no thanks Judge, we note your 'opinion' but we'd like to continue'?

NUTLEY BOY

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The whole point of the jury system is that the jury makes the decision on the evidence presented to them.

What the judge can do is decide that the evidence presented is grossly insufficient - that no reasonable jury could possibly convict on the evidence the prosecution has presented. In that situation he can withdraw the case from the jury, so they never get to pass a verdict. An acquittal results. But if he doesn't do that, if he lets the case to go the jury, then the jury's decision is final (subject to appeal to a higher court).

If the jury acquits, the judges views on whether they should have acquitted or not are irrelvant, and it is generally considered improper for a judge to make a comment about this. There is no appeal against an acquittal.

What would be your view of a trial judge who announces his approval of and agreement with the jury's verdict of "guilty" ?

IMHO it is bad form. The jury decided the issue, not the judge. Secondly, could it be read by the Court of Appeal as a nudge from the trial judge [ignoring the separate matter of the issue of leave to appeal] ? Could it be prejudicial to a defendant's merits on appeal for the Court of Appeal to also know the expressed verdict of the 13th. juror ?

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

I was under the impression that a judge's 'direction' (to a jury to return a not guilty verdict) was effectively an order and the trial was abruptly halted there and then.

Has a jury ever said 'no thanks Judge, we note your 'opinion' but we'd like to continue'?

Doubt it has ever actually happened.

As per the Court of Criminal Appeal in the DPP vs Nally [2007] 3 IR 130 case:-

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.

Andy From Sligo

a jury of (what is it 11 people?) are afforded the very honour of deciding if the person on the stand is guilty or not guilty of the crime - yet they are not presented with a list of what punishment the offender can receive should they find the defendant guilty .. I think it might be a good idea if they could.. and then vote on the options and present the majority verdict to the judge

hullaballoo

Hang the thief!

Hang the thief!

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

What would be your view of a trial judge who announces his approval of and agreement with the jury's verdict of "guilty" ?

IMHO it is bad form. The jury decided the issue, not the judge. Secondly, could it be read by the Court of Appeal as a nudge from the trial judge [ignoring the separate matter of the issue of leave to appeal] ? Could it be prejudicial to a defendant's merits on appeal for the Court of Appeal to also know the expressed verdict of the 13th. juror ?

The Supreme Court has previously stated there is no issue with a judge expressing their opinion of guilt as long as they don't attempt to direct the jury to find guilt which is unconstitutional.

GM228

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

a jury of (what is it 11 people?) are afforded the very honour of deciding if the person on the stand is guilty or not guilty of the crime - yet they are not presented with a list of what punishment the offender can receive should they find the defendant guilty .. I think it might be a good idea if they could.. and then vote on the options and present the majority verdict to the judge

12 jurors (although in certain circumstances some trials have continued when the initial 12 has reduced to 11 or even 10 for whatever valid reason).

The only issue a jury decides on is the issue of guilt or not so why would the appropriate sentence come into play? It is also possible that a jury could base its decision on the appropriate sentence, but to be fair in this day and age any juror will find out quick enough an idea of appropriate sentencing using Google etc.

Sentencing in itself can be a delicate issue especially where fairness comes into play, a jury would not have the appropriate experience to deal with such.

Andy From Sligo

GM228 wrote: »

12 jurors (although in certain circumstances some trials have continued when the initial 12 has reduced to 11 or even 10 for whatever valid reason).

The only issue a jury decides on is the issue of guilt or not so why would the appropriate sentence come into play? It is also possible that a jury could base its decision on the appropriate sentence, but to be fair in this day and age any juror will find out quick enough an idea of appropriate sentencing using Google etc.

Sentencing in itself can be a delicate issue especially where fairness comes into play, a jury would not have the appropriate experience to deal with such.

hmmm, but they are deemed experienced enough to give a guilty or not guilty verdict of someone

Sleeper12

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

hmmm, but they are deemed experienced enough to give a guilty or not guilty verdict of someone

Judges have experience sentencing people & even they get it wrong. If jurys were to hand down sentence they would all be too severe & would clog up the appeal courts with the sentence being reduced anyway