Jim Henderson wrote:
> Just to clarify, I think what you're saying here is that the judge can 
> "set aside" a guilty verdict, but not a verdict of "not guilty".

That is my understanding, yes. Not being a lawyer, ....

> IOW, the judge can't unilaterally decide that the jury erred and set a 
> guilty perp free, only that the jury might have convicted someone in 
> spite of the prosecution not actually proving their case.

Those are saying the same thing?  The judge can certainly say "the accused 
goes free in spite of the evidence."  But that's the sort of thing that the 
appeal (by the prosecution) addresses - the judge's misbehavior.

If the jury says "there wasn't enough evidence" even if there was, then the 
appeals court can't reverse that, because the appeals court is looking at 
the behavior of the judge and lawyers, not the behavior of the jury.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message