|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT |
OP here. Just looking into jury nullification, it does look
as if it is more of a criminal matter than a civil, but one
would imagine that there are similar principles involved.
Many thanks for reading.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
IANAL, and Wikipedia isn't a primary source, but assuming that nobody has
pranked the article just before I read it, here is what the relevant artcle says:
A "motion for judgment n.o.v."
(non obstante veredicto, or notwithstanding the verdict) asks the court to
reverse the jury's verdict on the grounds that the jury could not reasonably
have reached such a verdict. This motion is made after the jury's verdict. If
granted, the court enters a new verdict. This motion can be used in a criminal
case only to reverse a guilty verdict; not guilty verdicts are immune to
reversal by the court.
Under Rule 50, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
motion for directed verdict and JNOV have been replaced by the motion for
judgment as a matter of law (JAMOL), which can be made at the close of the
opposing party's evidence and "renewed" after return of the verdict (or after
the dismissal of a hung jury).
Under Rule 29, Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure the "motion for a judgment of acquittal," or Rule 917, Rules for
Courts-Martial the "motion for a finding of not guilty," if the evidence
presented by the prosecution is insufficient to support a rational finding of
guilty, there is no reason to submit the issue to a jury.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
