If a jury trial finds some one guitly, does the judge presiding over it have the right to override that decission?

To the best of my knowledge, a judge has that right, and, I assume, that duty. It has happened that a jury, finding the defendant to be an extremely unlikable person, possibly one who is known to have committed other crimes, has returned a verdict of Guilty, even though the prosecution did not prove guilt in the crime for which he is standing trial. A judge would then set adide the jury's finding, and render a decision based on the admissible evidence of the case, rather than emotion. In all trials, criminal and civil, the burden of proof is on those making a claim. If a judge finds that that claim was not proven within the guidelines set by law, he can, and should, render a fair verdict if the jury fails to do so.

It is almost a given that a defense attorney, after a guilty verdict has been rendered by a jury, will request that the judge set aside that verdict. If the motion has merit, the judge will.

ok thanks Dorian and Juan that is what i was wondering if they had that right after having a jury trial..

Who died and made the judge God? Why go to the bother of a jury disrpting the lives of those that serve? If the guilty does not like it there are appeals processes to be used and the interfering judge can let the adjudged guilty remain free on bond. Judges usurping the jury are reprehensible and contemptable.

Here's an interesting case where the jurors wanted their verdict set aside.

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0921.html

The article says the governments methods were legal but not totally ethical. Well let's require the criminals - they were in fact guilty - to operate in a totally ethical manner. Sorry I won't lose sleep over their legal and and justified convictions.

"Who died and made the judge God? Why go to the bother of a jury disrpting the lives of those that serve? If the guilty does not like it there are appeals processes to be used and the interfering judge can let the adjudged guilty remain free on bond. Judges usurping the jury are reprehensible and contemptable." - Gatman

It is the job and the duty of the judge to see that the jury makes a decision based on the admitted facts, not emotion. The jury is charged with that responsibility. Should they fail, the judge has the legal responsibility to set aside their verdict as one not based on fact. That is part of our legal system, and has been for a very long time. The symbol of Justice, blindfolded and holding a balance scale, represents the intent to only allow facts pertinent to the case at hand to matter. In the famous McDonald's hot coffee case, the jury's award of puntitve damages of $2.7 million was set aside by the judge, who awarded the woman $480,000. (While this may not technically be a directed verdict, the concept is the same.)
As far as who died to make the judge "God", I am sure you can find a list of war dead somewhere.

I really don't know what else to tell you, Gat. Trials are supposed to be about facts. Many of us prefer it that way.

"Traditionally, the Supreme Court has treated the Seventh Amendment as preserving the right
of trial by jury in civil cases as it ``existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted.''\7\ The right was to ``a trial by a jury of twelve men, in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is against the law or the evidence.'' -www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution (emphasis mine - DG)

"A verdict handed down by a judge in a trial without consideration of the jury because the facts presented and the applicable law left no question as to the outcome necessary in the case. If the complaining party fails to prove a prima facie case by exhibiting the minimum elements necessary to show liability, the defendant can move for a directed verdict without offering a defense." - www.legal_dictionary (emphasis mine- DG)

Like I said, justice is meant to be about facts.

OK with all that being said. How come the judge doesn't over ride the jury when they comes up with a hung jury? Instead of going to trial again wouldn't it be better to have the judge to decide at that point? Thanks guys

I see a reference to Common Law. Well, here where it came from, the judge cannot override a jury's decision. Indeed there is a monument in the foyer of the Central Criminal Court in London (the Old Bailey) to commemorate some jurors long ago who refused to return a verdict that the judge wanted. He had had them locked up in the jury room and deprived of food but they stood firm.

That said it seems it could , possibly, be a procedural difference of no great significance in practice.

Here the judge rules at the end of the case for the prosecution, if invited so to do in submissions by counsel, whether there is a case to answer. He may, of course, not even wait for submissions but raise the point himself. He may even do this in mid-case if the whole prosecution case depends on some evidence which fails and there seems no point in going on.

The ruling is seen as being on a question of law. It may be pure law; as with one count in your Martha Stewart case, the judge might say that the case argued by the prosecution is outside the statute concerned,so is not an offence. But it may involve some assessment, some judgment, of the evidence. If there is no evidence at all to show one element of the offence or that the accused committed it then clearly there is no case. Usually though there is at least some to show all the elements and to associate the accused with the act. The judge is entitled to apply common sense. He may hold that , though there is some evidence, it is so tenuous or so discredited that no reasonable jury could hold it good enough to found a conviction. So he saves them the trouble. He directs them to acquit.

If the case goes its full course then he must accept the verdict given. If the Court of Appeal holds that he misdirected the jury on the law then the verdict is overturned.

In any trial he alone is the judge of the law, they alone are the judges of the facts; it is no part of his role, once there is a case to answer, to interfere with the verdict of the jury, the result of their applying the law as he told them to the facts they find.

English juries do not sit in cases of negligence. The trials are all judge only. The only civil cases you'll ever see that employ juries are defamation cases. Here they do decide damages. They are given guidance by the judge, not in exact figures but generally, on how to approach the question. If they do, nonetheless find for a gross amount then the appellate court will interfere and reduce it to a figure consistent with the case.

Sammy, in many hung juries, it is a case of some believing that some point of evidence points to guilt, and others not being convinced the same evidence points to guilt. A hung jury may very well be doing its job. A directed verdict comes into play when a jury convicts (usually) when by point of law that there is just not enough evicence to do so. Again, usually, this happens when the accused is someone who is easily disliked. Judges sometimes allow a case to go to the jury knowing that there isn't enough evidence to convict, and hoping tha tthe jury will see the facts and acquit. When the jury doesn't, the judge should then do what is right, and set aside the verdict. This rarely makes a judge popular, and they do not like to do it. Please remember that the judge and the jury are both bound by law to reach a verdict based only on the evidence admitted at a trial. The accused may be a total scumbag who admits to other crimes, but unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he commited the crime for which he is being tried, the law says he should not be found guilty. Judges understand that; juries don't always.

Fred, I was just quoting the source. I have very little knowledge of English common law, so really can't comment.