Can the  Judge  allow jurors  to redeliberate wants that verdict has been called out by the judge? or can he a
79942
no, usally the verdict is read then they go juror by juror, juror no. 1  your verdict, juror no. 2 your verdict  and so on. when it gets to that point usally all jurors have reached the same decision
115882
Absolutely! If the judge is aware of these facts, not only is he morally and ethically obliged to help. In fact, there may even be some criminal charges that can be pressed with enough proof. It is a despicable act on the Judge's and I would appeal to a higher court and sue the robe off that crooked Judge. Get an attorney and go with it. Go to the media if you have to.
1164404
Don't really know, but the judicial system, even if they are, is set up to watch out for this.  The judge's only power is to interpret law and therefore can only make a ruling without a jury when there is only legal questions presented.  Any issues of fact must be determined by a jury, and any action the judge takes outside of his legal duty can be brought up on appeal, such as if he decides there are no issues of fact and does a summary judgment.
273638
I want to be called, so I can go in there, look the judge in the eye, and say:\n\nI know that, as a juror, I will have the power to nullify any law I consider unjust, by finding the accused not guilty even though he broke the law. \n\nCommon Law rules, as adopted by the Founding Fathers, centers around this and other similar powers, which can prevent many kinds of corruption in the legislature and judiciary.\n\nUnfortunately, judges are too corrupt already, and will reject you if you simply KNOW ABOUT the law.\n\nThis means that I will be able to do my Civic Duty, by striking a blow for justice, the Constitution, and Common Law, and yet won't actually have to get paid four cents per day to sit for some trial.\n\nMore info at:
500521
Yes you can.\n\nThe prosecutor can take the case to the grand jury over and over again, then use a preliminary hearing the the grand jury votes no true bill. Your lawyer can tell the judge at your arraignment hearing the case has been dismissed before and that will go a long way toward rolling it again. Good luck.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
132816
If judges are allowed to alter jury's determinations then there is no need for the jury. Thejury Trail system is based on certain strong fundamentals so if you have a jury trial system then you must respect the Jury's determinations. there are countries which do not practice the Jury trail system, the judges alone make the decisions. In simple words if you are playing a game then you have to follow the rules of the game.
230163
No; not "officially", and [generally] juries rule on the "+" or "-" regarding ANY award after the civil case is heard; the amount [again, USUALLY] is directed by the jury; obviously, this can be less, eqal to, or more. \n\nHere comes the "circus" part. \n\nAs in all jury-based decisions, not only does appeal up to Supreme Court loom, but so does "directed verdict" by the judge; and there is no "recount" as in congress to overturn this as if it were a "veto"; thus, in effect, ultimately all plaintiffs, and defendants, are facing a "bench trial", since his/her honor can overturn the jury verdict- again, appeal is possible, but check the stats for "success" in all appellate courts, and "directed verdict" has a 10x "stronger hold" against appeal.\n\nWhich direction does the directed verdict go in a civil case? If the "burden of proof" of damages, primae faciae, was met, the some damages are usually approved by judge if jury so directs; specifically, when judge enunciates clearly that "this factor cannot be considered in approval of an award" but feels no other part of case caused an award, especially one "felt" large, or even larger than "requested", will be overturned and a directed verdict - even directed amount, is ordered; sometimes, even NO award, when a huge one has been awarded, against the plaintiff, as judge rules the instructions were ignored. \n\nGiven the power of "directed verdict" especially in civil court, I would want a lawyer who had a terrific "track record" in bench trials more than ANY "famous" criminal attorney; usually, a good attorney is skillful at "jury control and judge appeasement", but if your attorney has any hint of "pissing off judges", get another to represent you in court; another factor in the directed verdict, even if you have grounds for a solid appeal, how LONG can you "wait" for a wrongful death verdict? The pain must be awful, and our judicial system, especially when you are opposing the "bottomless money pit" of huge corporations i.e., insurance companies, often KNOW they can "wear you down" with continuances, motions, and avoid payment by "making you cave in" with time.\n\n\nGood luck and good verdict\n\njm
167036
The jurors are picked for their integrity and honesty and the judge has to deliver that message to them and he has to trust them to do as they are told.  I would find it hard not to talk to my husband abou a case.  We talk about everything.
319754
the question should be, should a judge discriminate. the answer is no but he can.  however i have learned that there is always more to a story. who recieved the brunt of your swearing? what was your attitude and body language in court? do you have a record and what does that look like? the questions are unlimited. also take note that a judge has a window to work from when handing down a sentence from minimal penalty to the max. as long as the judge remains in that box.. you really have to have concrete evidence of prejudice. it sounds like your punishment was some type of community service.  who would waste a chance to be prejudice on something so minor.  not me.. by the way in some areas this would be a violent crime.. assault.. domestic violence or worse. so i would be satisfied with what i got. finally learn from this situation.. to quote the words of a song i love.. you  gotta  know when to hold em, fold em, walk away or run. u should have ran.
409204
I don't think there is any limitation to a judges power in regard to contempt. You'd have to get another judge to overrule him(her), and that's not likely.
841039
Yes they can serve on a jury and some have. Although, depending how big the celebrity is, it might cause too much disruption in the courtroom so, the judge can pardon them.... ;)
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.
1159166
When judgement day is upon us, and it's Mr. Bu$h's turn to defend his position on the questionable decisions made in this era, then wouldn't it be interesting to witness the jury's decision - especially if the jurors happened to be all gay. Something to think about, isn't it?
216483
you can - just see a judge
289987
Sure can.\n\nThe only thing that would keep your from being a juror is a prejudice in the case. Such as knowing the parties or having a strong opinion on the case.\n\nA good understanding of the law is a good benefit for the jury. you would add more meaning to a verdict.
576234
At the outset of any jury trial the judge will ask a number of disqualifying questions such as (they will be relevant to the trial at hand):\n\nDo you  know the defendant?\nHave you worked in law enforncement?\nHave you been convicted of _______?\nIs anyone in your family a police officer?\nWould serving on the jury of a 3 week trial induce an unreasonable burden (financial, family etc)?\n\nThe judge is probing to find jurors that might be biased. Answering yess to any of these initial questions will probably get you off. But if you do answer yes to these qustions, be prepared to elaborate on your response. Judges don't like jury jumpers. The judge will use the scorn of your fellow potential jurors to keep you from escaping easily. You'oll probably be further questioned in front of the entire group of potential jurors. \n\nIf this doesn't work. Then during the Voi Dire (when the lawyers start questioning) you will have a second chance. This round of questioning is meant to weed out jurors that might be detrimental to either sides particular case. Each side has a limited number of objections available to them and may have a number of jurors removed. These will be questions that obviously favor a specific side in the case such as:\n\nWould you be more or less likely to believe a member of the law enforcement community?\nDo you find someone more credible if they hold a higher educational degree?\n\nMy best advice would be not to outright lie, but stretch the truth. Don't be the first one to respond to a judges questioning. The first person is usually the scapegoat for the judges speech on how jury service is a civic duty. Choose your timeing wisely, because if you onject more than once the judge will recognize your evasive tactics. Also I would not try for the "unreasonable burden" argument. There are very few legitimate circumstances that fall under these category.