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.
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).
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]
The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, [2] and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for ...
In civil cases, a special verdict can be given, but in criminal cases a general verdict is rendered, because requiring a special verdict could apply pressure to the jury, and because of the jury's historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case.
A United States military "jury" (or "members", in military parlance) serves a function similar to an American civilian jury, but with several notable differences.Only a general court-martial (which may impose any sentences, from dishonorable discharge to death [1]) or special court-martial (which can impose sentences of up to one year of confinement and bad-conduct discharge [2]) includes members.
The judge is expected to take most of Monday to deliver the verdict on the four men accused of falsely imprisoning and assaulting the businessman. Kevin Lunney abduction case: Special court judge ...
Federal law requires that juries return a unanimous verdict—one that all members of the jury agree upon—in criminal trials. [2] While most states follow the same requirement for felony convictions, at the time when Apodaca reached the U.S. Supreme Court, neither Oregon nor Louisiana required state court juries to return unanimous verdicts.