When a jury serves at a court case....?

Question

How can the Judge ORDER them to reach a specific verdict?
I thought the whole point of a jury was that THEY decide the final verdict, so what is the point of having a jury when the Judge can order what they like anyway?

A case I just heard on the radio is being concluded with the Judge telling the jury NOT to find her guilty..
My husband is about to do jury service but if the Judge overrides the jury's decision, why bother?
I don't understand.
How does it all work?

Answer 1

I've done jury service twice, the judge can only instruct a jury on a legal point only, whoever is being tried can be as guilty as hell but unless the case is kept within legal guidelines the case can be dropped.

Answer 2

More likely than not you misheard what was said on the radio, or it was edited badly. The judge may quite properly said something like, "Unless you find that the defendant did each of X, Y and Z, you must find the defendant not guilty."

That would be a perfectly proper excerpt from a charge given by a judge to the jury, which - if you missed the first part, you would think sounded ridiculous.

That having been said, under certain circumstances, the judge can overrule a jury verdict - in a criminal or civil case. Those circumstances are described in a couple of the answers above. Also, a judge can find that while the verict is not to be disturbed, the amount of damages is incorrect, and can - again, under some circumstances, require that it be either increased or decreased (though decreased is far more common).

Answer 3

The judge cannot. Explicitly absolutely cannot.

The judge can only instruct the jury on what the law means. The law prohibits the judge from telling the jury what facts they must find. In fact, the jury instructions in most states specifically require the judge to tell the jury that.

There is one exception. There are situations where a judge can disregard a jury verdict finding someone guilty, and declare the person not guilty. This would happen if the judge rules as a matter of law that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof and that no reasonable jury could find the person guilty. It cannot happen the other way (declaring someone guilty if the jury acquits).

But even in that exception, the trial record must reflect what the jury returned as a verdict, and the judge then rules on a matter of law setting aside the guilty verdict. The judge does not (and cannot) tell the jury what to decide.

Answer 4

Amazes me that respondents here seem to always refer to criminal cases, when most cases are civil. Anyway, in civil, there are things called a directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (jnov). They involve not so much the judge "telling" the jury to reach a certain result, but the judge either taking the decision away from the jury without ever giving it to them (directed verdict), or entering a judgment different from that already reached by the jury (jnov, on motion, and if motion granted). There is a another motion called a nonsuit which, if denied, will often be followed up by a motion for directed verdict at the appropriate time. So, there are at least 3 ways to try to either keep the case from the jury or to replace the jury's verdict. A fourth step is a motion for new trial which, if granted, renders the first verdict inapplicable.

Answer 5

Sounds like the judge is a Bush supporter...