|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 10, @10:10PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand the frustration one feels when hearing a story like this one. It seems unjust. But there is a counterpolicy. A judge can in some cases make a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, but in such cases people ask the same question: why? If a judge does this, people wonder what's the point of having a jury at all, and those who strongly feel the person was guilty often are outraged and call it an injustice. A judge in a jury trial is supposed to allow the jury to decide questions of fact (what happened) while the judge only decides questions of law (what rules apply and when). Only if a judge feels that no reasonable jury could decide the way a particular one did is a judge allowed to override a jury's decision. A judge to "believe" someone is innocent while also deciding that a jury made a reasonable decision that the person is guilty. It's a tight squeeze, but not logically inconsistent, because even reasonable people can differ as to whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This must have been a very difficult decision for the judge, but I wouldn't be too quick to find the judge did the wrong thing.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Marc. This is one case in which the judge recognized his actual role in the judicial system. Some judges today feel like they're supposed to *make* the laws/take the law into their hands alone, or use the bench for partisan politics. He probably did the best he could.
We all must remember that there's a reason for our courts of appeals in this country. If the judge feels that strongly the jury was mistaken (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were), the judgement against the convicted man may be overturned by a higher court.
It certainly bears watching.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
