Can a court judge override a jury decision?
<p>My knowledge of law is minimal, I'm curious about edge cases in the jury/judge dynamic. When can they override each other, interesting situations where decisions that would typically be made by one party gets made by the other?</p>

<p>It depends on what the jury said, and if it's criminal or civil.</p>

<p>In criminal cases, the judge may almost never set aside a verdict of acquittal. There is a <em>single</em> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Aleman">case</a> in the US in which this happened, and it was a bench trial (no jury). That case featured the defendant bribing his trial judge; the Seventh Circuit held that he was never in jeopardy due to the bribe. As far as I can tell, that's the only one. There have been no cases that I can find of a jury's verdict of acquittal being overturnable. Judges can <em>poll</em> the jury to make sure they're unanimous (at least in federal court), and if they aren't then it's a mistrial, but that's because the jury was never in agreement in the first place.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a judge has several ways to enforce an acquittal. In federal court, for instance, the defense can move for a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_29">motion of acquittal</a> either before or after the case goes to the jury. If the motion is granted before the verdict, double jeopardy applies to retrial. If it's granted after a conviction, then the judicial acquittal can be reversed on appeal, possibly requiring a new trial.</p>

<p>Before the verdict is returned, the judge can declare a mistrial. After the verdict is returned, it's too late for that. </p>

<p>In civil cases, things are more complicated: double jeopardy does not exist there. There, there is a notion of a judgment as a matter of law: the judge determines that, based on evidence presented, no reasonable jury could <em>possibly</em> find the other way. This can happen before or after the verdict, and is appealable. </p>

<p>In the United States, this is known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict" rel="nofollow">judgement notwithstanding the verdict</a>.  According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50" rel="nofollow">the judge in a civil trial can override any decision by the jury</a> if they find that no reasonable jury would have reached that decision; for procedural reasons, there must have been a prior <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_as_a_matter_of_law" rel="nofollow">motion for judgment as a matter of law</a> in order for the judge to do this.</p>

<p>Overruling a jury's verdict in a criminal case is more difficult because of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Impartial_jury" rel="nofollow">Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury</a>.  In general, a verdict of "not guilty" cannot be overturned, while a verdict of "guilty" is overturned through procedures other than having the trial judge override the jury's decision.</p>

<p>A judge cannot overrule a <strong>decision</strong> by a jury that came about in a legal way. That is, the law basically protects juries against the consequences of their decisions.</p>

<p>The judge can intervene in the jury <strong>process</strong> if there was something tainted. For instance, if a third party had tried to bribe one or more jurors, or some juror claimed that they were tricked or bullied into casting the "twelfth" vote.</p>

<p>One side of this commonly falls under the term <a href="/questions/tagged/jury-nullification" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;jury-nullification&#39;" rel="tag">jury-nullification</a>, wherein juries disregard the law and (usually) a judge's instructions in rendering their verdict.</p>

<p>On the other side, my understanding is that judges can pretty much do whatever they want.  If they don't like what a trial jury does they can declare a mistrial; if they don't like a guilty verdict they can simply overturn it; and if they don't like a sentence, they can just change it.  In practice the only thing that checks a judge's power in the courtroom is being overruled by higher courts.</p>

<p><em>Clarification</em>: One thing a judge <em>cannot</em> do is declare a mistrial <em>after</em> a jury has delivered a verdict of innocence: that would violate the clear constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.</p>

jury-nullification jury judge