Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In English law, a special verdict is a verdict by a jury that makes specific factual conclusions rather than (or in addition to) the jury's declaration of guilt or liability. For example, jurors may write down a specific monetary amount of damages or a finding of proportionality in addition to the jury's ultimate finding of liability.
Sometimes a jury makes specific findings of fact in what is called a "special verdict". A verdict without specific findings of fact that includes only findings of guilt, or civil liability and an overall amount of civil damages, if awarded, is called a "general verdict". [citation needed]
JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned and are then called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), but the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV (from the English judgment and the Latin non obstante veredicto).
The first major decision in this direction was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, [23] which held that the bench could override the jury's verdict on a point of law. The 1895 decision Sparf v. United States, [24] written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of its right to nullify laws. It ...
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In American state courts , JNOV is the practice whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or ...
The verdict means the jury confirms the death is suspicious, but is unable to reach any other verdicts open to them. [1] Mortality studies consider it likely that the majority of open verdicts are recorded in cases of suicide where the intent of the deceased could not be proved, [ 2 ] although the verdict is recorded in many other circumstances.
The jury verdict was not unanimous, and was supported by 9 of the 12 jurors in the case. To return a verdict in a civil case in Missouri, three-fourths of jurors must agree.
It would then be for the judge to decide whether the facts found amounted to guilt. Though special verdicts had once been common, none had been returned since 1785 and the jury in any case retained the right to return a general verdict. Huddleston was further determined that the legal question would be settled by a reserved bench for authority.