|Short answer: Your understanding is wrong.|
Longer answer: Your understanding is wrong, but.
In a jury trial, the jury is the finder of fact. Period.
That doesn't mean the judge doesn't have a great deal of
control and discretion. To begin with, the judge has a great
deal of control over the evidence (facts) that the jury
sees. So you start with that.
But to get more specific, the judge will not, technically,
be overruling them on questions of fact. It will be couched
in a different way. Here's some examples-
"No reasonable jury could have found, based on the evidence
adduced at trial, that...."
"The jury made the following calculations for damages. As a
matter of law, the damages calculations must be made as
Now, arguably, some of the rulings might seem like they are
issues of fact (insufficient evidence to support a verdict,
for example), but they will always be issues of law. It's
may seem like a distinction without a difference in some
cases, yet there it is. This is why, for example, FRCP 50(a)
is a judgment as a matter of law (not a judgment as a matter
of law or fact).
A judge that write an opinion simply stating that a jury got
the facts wrong, and is overturning a jury verdict on a
factual, not a legal basis, is a judge begging for a
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]