Is there a known case where a judge jury have not agreed?

Question

What would happen?

Answer 1

If I get what you are saying I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The jury decide the verdict. The judge oversees the trial and sets sentence. In some occasions he can direct the jury to acquit the defendant.

xxR

Answer 2

The judge has the task of summing up the evidence and directing the jury on points of law. After that, it is up to the jury, who are judges of fact. Where the jury have clearly disregarded the judge's guidance, this could lead to an appeal.

Some people have carried out research on this very matter and it can be found on this link. http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/VidmarJURY.pdf

Answer 3

Absolutely. There are many with one notable one you may have heard something about: Massachusetts vs. Louise Woodward. The state charged the nanny with first degree murder. The jury convicted her of second degree murder, but Judge Hiller Zobel overturned the jury verdict and reduced her conviction to involuntary manslaughter, and he then sentenced her to 279 days in jail, which she had already served (the prosecution was asking 15-20 years). The prosecution appealed the judges decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which upheld the judges decision.

Answer 4

That happens ALL THE TIME!!!!! The jury wins 99% of the time. The judge CANNOT make decisions of fact, and the jury CANNOT make decisions of law. ONLY if it is decided that a "reasonable jury" could not make such a decision, will the jury's verdict be overturned. That's incredibly rare.

Answer 5

I am sure I am correct on this the jury is the deciding factor,obviously the judge will, have his own opinion but, I haven't heard of that influencing the verdict.

Answer 6

In the case of Clive Ponting, the judge, in effect, instructed the jury to find Ponting guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Act. The jury found him not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting

The following article is on so-called 'perverse verdicts'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,573601,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,3605,426119,00.html