Directed verdict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminal procedure |
---|
Criminal trials and convictions |
Rights of the accused |
Right to a fair trial · Speedy trial |
Jury trial · Presumption of innocence |
Exclusionary rule (U.S.) |
Self-incrimination · Double jeopardy |
Verdict |
Acquittal · Conviction |
Not proven (Scot.) · Directed verdict |
Sentencing |
Mandatory · Suspended · Custodial |
Dangerous offender (Can.) |
Capital punishment · Execution warrant |
Cruel and unusual punishment |
Post-conviction events |
Parole · Probation |
Tariff (UK) · Life licence (UK) |
Miscarriage of justice |
Exoneration · Pardon |
Related areas of law |
Criminal defenses |
Criminal law · Evidence |
Civil procedure |
Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
In law, a directed verdict is an order from the judge presiding over a jury trial that one side or the other wins. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit.
The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court[citation needed]. For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This term has largely been replaced in the American legal system with Judgment as a matter of law.