Only nine percent of jury verdicts lack legal merit per trial judges

Evidence

Moreover, in most cases in which trial judges disagreed with jury verdicts, they viewed those disagreements as arising not from jury caprice or incompetence but primarily from different evaluations of the evidence or the defendant. In only 9 percent of the cases did trial judges maintain that the jury’s verdict was without legal merit. Subsequent studies have corroborated the conclusion of The American Jury that jurors generally follow the law and evidence presented to them But if the decisions of judges and juries generally coincide, does it not make sense to dispense with jury trials, which may be costly and time consuming, and allow judges to decide all cases? — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1437

Categorization

  • QUESTION: What is the actual legal standard a judge applies when judging a verdict ‘without legal merit’ — reasonable-doubt sufficiency, or something laxer?
  • XREF: connects to: Criminal juries systematically convict less often than judges would in identical cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1439; Juries convict more leniently than judges would in criminal cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 891; Jury trials divide fact-finding to jurors and law-determination to judges. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1401 (+2 more)

Broader Connections