On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:36:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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, ....

Same here, though I do have a fascination with the profession.  If I were 
more motivated, I might have chosen that career.  But there are a couple 
of lawyers in my (not immediate) family - two cousins, actually.

>> 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.

No, actually not the same thing.  As I understand it, a judge can 
determine that even though the jury convicted the defendant the 
prosecution didn't actually make their case and can reverse the verdict.

The judge cannot (again in my understanding) decide that the jury's "not 
guilty" verdict is incorrect and overturn the verdict to "guilty".

I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the 
judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a "not 
guilty" verdict.

> 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.

Right.  But if a judge overturns a "guilty" verdict (ie, makes "guilty" 
into "not guilty"), the prosecution can appeal, at least to my 
understanding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message