|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
Watch your language please. This is Groklaw.
Yes, the judge can do this. The jury is the
trier of fact, not law. That's the judge's
job. And if he decides as a matter of law
that no reasonable jury could find Y, he
can indeed change it to N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
| I'm sorry, but the original post in this thread is incorrect as a matter of
Constitutional law. PJ has it exactly right.
The Seventh Amendment says that
a jury-tried fact may be reviewed "according to the rules of the Common Law."
The English Common Law at the time of the Revolution permitted a judge to set
aside or nullify a jury verdict if that verdict was contrary to the evidence. As
our system has evolved, the judge has to justify that decision in writing and
the newly-losing party can appeal.
On appeal, the Appeals Court reviews
this kind of decision de novo, meaning that they give no special credence
to the district judge but instead evaluate the record facts, jury's decision and
judge's decision for themselves. (Compare with other types of actions where the
reviewing appeals court defers to the district judge's decision unless it is
clearly in error.)
Clicky: Seventh
Amendment Text ---
IAALBIANYL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
