Judges in court

[fairy!]

From what I've seen on tv... The Judge asks the Jury what their verdict is & they say guilty or not guilty, then the Judge gives the defendant a bit of a speech about their crime & the case etc. 

So, does the Judge have a guilty & not guilty speech prepared?  & what if they personally don't agree with the verdict??

[landie]

Whether or not they agree is not the issue in law. If, for example the accused is acquitted when there is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove his guilt the judge may, in his summing up, before the jury retires to consider their verdict, give guidance to the jury. Once the verdict has been returned the judge may only apear surprised if a guilty man has been acquitted or give as lenient a sentence as possible in the case of an innocent, in his opinion, man found guilty. Generally you only need a speech for a guilty verdict - to explain and affirm the gravity and the sentencing.

[Miss Zippy]

A judge has the power to direct a jury to return a not guilty verdict if he/she believes the prosecution evidence is weak/flawed.  As you would expect, a judge does not have the power to direct the jury to return a guilty verdict. The judge can also direct a jury to acquit a defendant. The prosecution always gives its evidence first.  Afterwards, the defence has the opportunity to speak with the judge, without the jury in attendance, and argue that the evidence presented is so weak/flawed that a jury could not return a guilty verdict.  If the judge agrees, he will then ask the jury to return and direct them to acquit the defendant.  Judges do not generally prepare speeches in advance in criminal cases (they are not delivering a judgment in the same way a judge would in a civil litigation matter for instance).

[fairy!]

Cool cool... thanks v much :-)

[jake-the-peg]

You might be interested in the case of Edward Bushell who in 1670 along with the other members of a jury acquitted 2 quakers. Bushell and the rest of the jury were locked up by the judge in an effort to get them to change their verdict which they refused to do.

Since this time juries have been empowered to deliver a so called perverse verdict which does not follow the letter of the law so that "natural justice" can be served.

Examples of this would be Clive Pontin's case where he broke the official secrets act to reveal details of the sinking of the General Belgrano,  Pottle and Randle's acquittal for helping the Russian spy George Blake escape or the acquittal of the group who caused criminal damage to the hawk fighter aircraft bound for Indonesia to be used against East Timor (now independant).

If I recall in that last case the judge had some choice words for the jury.

[slimfandango]

why do you ask? The same q came to my mind when watching that black floridian murder accused get off last night. Same goes for judge direction of jury...it looked like he was reading from a standard patter handed out to all judges.

[fairy!]

Slimfandango... I was watching Cherished the other night about the lady (Angela Cannings?) accused of murdering her babies & the jury said "Guilty" & then the Judge instantly gave her a speech about her crime... I just thought, what if the Judge thought she was innocent, yet still had to give her a speech about being guilty...