3 ms·
> If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mec
by vkou 3y ago
> If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal.
By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
- chongli 3y agoOnly on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
- vkou 3y agoThen why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
- chongli 3y agoPerhaps I didn’t make myself clear: The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that. The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising. If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.