If the jury finds a party guilty or not guilty, can the judge still say the opposite?

Question

Jury : We find the defendant,....guilty!
Judge: Nope!! I say he's not guilty!

Answer 1

As always, questions like this are highly dependent on wherer the events happen.

Theoretically, in some places, a judge can refuse to accept a jury verdict, but it is very, very rare.

In Australia there is a process called a "verdict by direction". That will happen where there is absolutely no evidence that an element of the offence exists. I once persuaded a judge to do iit on a "break enter and steal" where there was no evidence that a person had entered premises unlawfully, or ever had the stuff he was meant to have stolen. The judge told the foreperson to stand up and find the accused "not guilty". The foreperson looked very puzzled.

Verdicts by direction happen, but they are not common.

Answer 2

A judge can enter a "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict" if the judge finds that the verdict of the jury is somehow inconsistent with the facts of the case or that the jury has exhibited bias. However, the judge's decision will be almost automatically appealed.

Generally, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is filed by the defense, seeking the judge to enter instead a verdict of Not Guilty. If overturned on appeal, the defendant would still be re-tried, because most appellate courts would find that the verdict was not final and therefore jeapardoy had not attached.

I honestly have never seen a case of a judge entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge in a criminal case holds great deference to the jury as the trier of fact.

In some states, a Judge has the right to over-rule a jury during the sentencing phase of a trial. In other words, the jury recommends the sentence, and then the judge has the final word. This isn't the same thing however, as the judge is usually instructed to give heed to the jury, but not required to follow its recommendation.

Answer 3

If a jury finds a party guilty, or not guilty, the most a sitting Judge can do is throw out the verdict of the jury, and that could effect the outcome of a case. If a jury found someone guilty and the Judge tossed the verdict, the person would go free because under the double jeopardy rule you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. Judges rarely use this authority in criminal trials unless the Jury comes to a clearly ignorant, or obviously biased conclusion that has no correlation to the evidence presented.

Answer 4

In some cases the judge has this right (impeachment of jury?) I think the legal term is "set aside the verdict"

Answer 5

I believe that the judge can set aside the verdict despite what the jury comes back with if he feels that they didn't interpret the law correctly.... this is a very good question... :)

Answer 6

I agree with Richard W. A judge can set aside a "guilty" verdict but not a verdict of "not guilty."

Answer 7

If found guilty, the Judge can 'set aside' the verdict.
But if found Not Guilty, I don't believe he has that option.

Answer 8

The presiding judge cannot say the opposite, but another judge could declare a mistrial.

Answer 9

Not now. In the old days he could.

Answer 10

Gee...that would suck, LOL!