Abuse of judicial discretion

Status
Not open for further replies.

adomir

New Member
I don't know that much about the law, but I have a question about the judicial process that I hope doesn't reveal my ignorance too much. I heard that in civil and even criminal cases, judges have the power to vacate a jury decision, or to significantly alter the damages that the jury finds. What sort of power do judges have to change a jury finding, whether with respect to a finding of guilt or innocent, or to the amount of damages? I understand that in some civil cases for instance, juries might get a little carried away and award the plaintiff absurb amounts of money, but even so, if judges have the power to limit or change that amount, doesn't that fundamentally undermine the jury system? Wouldn't that give judges too much discretion, and allow them ultimately to disregard the jury system?
 
adomir said:
I don't know that much about the law, but I have a question about the judicial process that I hope doesn't reveal my ignorance too much. I heard that in civil and even criminal cases, judges have the power to vacate a jury decision, or to significantly alter the damages that the jury finds. What sort of power do judges have to change a jury finding, whether with respect to a finding of guilt or innocent, or to the amount of damages? I understand that in some civil cases for instance, juries might get a little carried away and award the plaintiff absurb amounts of money, but even so, if judges have the power to limit or change that amount, doesn't that fundamentally undermine the jury system? Wouldn't that give judges too much discretion, and allow them ultimately to disregard the jury system?
In some instances this is really a problem although there are some checks and balances. A judge cannot throw out a decision just because he doesn't agree with the decision of the jury. He/she must find that no reasonable jury, based on the facts, could arrive at such a conclusion and in order to ensure that justice is properly served he must vacate that decision of the jury. It is an attempt to ensure that great lawyering (e.g., snakeoil selling) for one party doesn't poison the jury with regard to the facts. If the facts clearly point to a certain conclusion but the jury seems to disregard it completely because the plaintiff's attorney is a good looking, suave guy and the defendant's lawyer seems rather unsightly and the jury is favoring the plaintiff because of it, then based on the facts the judge can say that no reasonable jury could have found the conclusion. If the judge is found to have abused this privilege there is a disciplinary process -- but I do appreciate where you are coming from. As the joke goes, the difference between G-d and a Federal Court Judge is that G-d doesn't think he's a Federal Court Justice... :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top