when a jury has made their ruling can the jude make his own decision, based on his own charge?

Answer 1

Yes,

It is rare, but a judge can set aside a verdict and make his own ruling. These cases are almost always appealed in a higher court, but until that happens the judge's ruling holds.

There are two ways to set aside a jury's verdict. First the judge at the trial can hear the verdict and then immediately decide to set aside the verdict, calling for a re-trial, or they can give a directed verdict; which is the judge's decision on guilty and penalty, no matter what the jury says. The second way that a verdict can be set aside is if the defendant wins an appeal in a higher court.

Appeals are not re-trials, they are judgments based on the judgment given and the procedures in the court. If the trial was conducted properly, if the judge and jury were fair and did not make any mistakes then the verdict will be upheld. This will happen even if new evidence is found that would clear the defendant (like DNA evidence that can prove beyond a doubt that the defendant is innocent). In cases where new evidence comes to life it is considered irrelevant to the case itself, unless some error made in the case caused that evidence to be omitted. So if a man is judged to be guilty of rape, he goes to jail. On appeal if new DNA evidence proves he is 100% innocent then it won't be considered. IF that DNA evidence was misplaced or hidden by the prosecution then it should have been admitted to the trial so it can be used as a basis for an appeal.

When the Innocence Foundation conducts DNA tests to prove a defendant’s guilt or innocence it cannot change the verdict of the trial. It will require the state governor to give that person a pardon to get them cleared of the crime.

Juries by definition are laymen, they are not lawyers and sometimes they ignore the law or part of it. In these cases then the judge or a higher court has to set aside the verdict. Usually this is a fault of the judge’s instructions not covering every aspect that the jury considers. (But, who can cover every single aspect?)

In a recent (Feb 2007) Supreme Court Case the court ruled in favor of the Tobacco Company Philip Morris. The jury's ruling was that the tobacco company, by lying about the dangers of smoking, was responsible for the death of a woman's husband, a long time smoker. The jury then awarded a huge judgment that Philip Morris would have to pay. The Supreme Court set aside the jury verdict saying that the reward was too high because the jury was trying to punish Philip Morris for ALL the victims of smoking, instead the reward needs to be based on the damage done to that man and woman.

Here is an example from Virginian Law: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6601(194111)28%3A1%3C122%3AJTJRTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Here is and example of New York's laws on directed verdicts: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-1958(192203)22%3A3%3C256%3ADVUTNY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
Here is an attorney that tries to get judges to do it: http://www.sqnlaw.com/brown-p-conv/
Here is a New York case where the defendant tried to get the judge to set aside the verdict: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is_20060105/ai_n15995853
Here is the case where a federal judge set aside a verdict: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/19/africa/web.0819reconstruct.php
Here is an excerpt from a Texas Judge's Opinion: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CBW1dyiWZlcJ:www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/jc/JC0396.pdf+%22set+aside+a+verdict%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us
"You similarly ask whether a person whose felony conviction has been “set aside” under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is convicted for the purposes of section 46.04 of the Penal Code. Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. We assume that you refer to the procedure under article 42.12, section 20 by which a judge may set aside a defendant’s verdict or permit the defendant to withdraw a plea. See TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12,s 20(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001). Because a defendant whose verdict is set aside or who is permitted to withdraw a plea under article 42.12, section 20 is generally “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted or to which he has pleaded guilty,” id., we conclude that a defendant whose guilty verdict has been set aside or who has been permitted to withdraw a plea is, like a pardoned felon, not subject to section 46.04 of the Penal Code."
Here is a quote from the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE4DA1130F930A25756C0A9639C8B63
"A court in Philadelphia set aside last November's jury verdict and ordered a new trial in a liability case against Wyeth over its diet drugs,"

Answer 2

Victory-most of the answers you got were good. A judge cannot find a defendant guilty after an acquittal. That would be double jeopardy. He can order a new trial in a civil case, but not in a criminal case when the defendant is acquitted. He can enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as someone else said, but not if a defendant is acquitted. Still double jeopardy. The judge has a lot more flexibility in a civil case. If he thinks a money judgment is too high, he can order a remittitur (that means the winner has to agree to a lesser amount). Some states allowed an additur--which means he could order more for a plaintiff, although my state does not allow that.

Answer 3

Yes a judge and review the evidence of a case and if he feels the jury made a substantial error in their decision, he can overrule it with his own ruling.

This is more common than you realize and occurs mostly in lawsuits where the jury awards large amounts of money... judges lower the amount sometimes.

Answer 4

The judge is just a facilitator and the jury makes the decision.

Answer 5

Yes. Judgment notwithstanding verdict. If he feels that the evidence is overwhelmingly obvious and the jury blew it, he can rule from the bench. I think this applies mainly in acquittals, I don't think a judge could find guilty a defendant whom a jury had acquitted.

Answer 6

Yes he can.
There was a 1997 case in Boston involving a nanny named Louise Woodward. She was charged and found guilty of shaking a baby to death - but the judge over turned the jury's guilty finding and set her free.

Answer 7

When there is a jury determining guilt or innocence, the Judge can only set the punishment, not the verdict.

Answer 8

No thats a trial by jury, judge can impose his own form of sentanceing.

Answer 9

Yes a judge can overrule a jury if he believes the jury acted improperly.

Answer 10

Yes. He can find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge.