Directed verdict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Judgment as a matter of law. (Discuss)

Criminal procedure

Criminal trials and convictions

Rights of the accused
Fair trial · Speedy trial · Jury trial
Counsel · Presumption of innocence
Exclusionary rule (U.S.)
Self-incrimination · Double jeopardy (Not E&W)
Verdict
Acquittal · Conviction
Not proven (Scot.) · Directed verdict
Sentencing
Mandatory · Suspended · Custodial
Dangerous offender (Can., E&W)
Capital punishment · Execution warrant
Cruel and unusual punishment
Post-conviction events
Parole · Probation
Tariff (UK) · Life licence (UK)
Miscarriage of justice
Exoneration · Pardon
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses
Criminal law · Evidence
Civil procedure
Portals: Law · Criminal justice

In law, a directed verdict is ruling by a judge presiding over a jury trial typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the defendant.

A directed verdict is usually made because the judge concludes the plaintiff has failed to offer the minimum amount of evidence to prove her case even if there were no opposition. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case. In other words, the judge rules that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.

A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.

In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit.

The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court^{[citation needed]}. For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This term has largely been replaced in the American legal system with Judgment as a matter of law.