Talk:Directed verdict

Merge with Judgment as a matter of law
This has been copied from Talk:Judgment as a matter of law

Whilst the other page is a stub, I think the merge should not take place or be the other way around. The reason for this is largely one of US =! World (check out WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, a rather bad habit which I think many of the legal topics have been slipping into recently). I will remove the tag since there is no supporting argument on the talk page or edit summary. I might support a move to merge the other way around, but I don't feel strongly enough about that. --163.1.165.116 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

-

JMOL is a broader category that encapsulates the older terms of directed verdict (where a judge "directs" the verdict before the jury renders its verdict) and JNOV/judgment non obstante veredicto/judgment notwithstanding the verdict (where a judge disagrees with the jury's verdict and replaces that verdict with his own verdict). The older terms continue to be used in some circles possibly because they are more specific as to where the judgment occurred within the trial. Judgment notwithstanding verdict, Directed verdict,

Criminal Law vs. Civil Law
Just a side note, directed verdict is not specific to criminal law, yet there is criminal procedure info box thingy on the right side of the page. Directed verdict is practically the same thing as Judgment as a matter of law, and the judgment as a matter of law page does not have the criminal procedure info box on the right. CougRoyalty (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Currently the lede says


 * In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.

(1) The last sentence strikes me as confusing because, if the judge directs the jury to decide the case in a particular way, why is there "no longer any need for the jury to decide the case"? Would it be better wording to say 'there is no longer any need for the jury to deliberate on the case"?

(2) Also, I wonder if the passage is misleading because the use of the term "an order" in the first sentence implies that it must be obeyed. Yet Judgment notwithstanding verdict says "a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict," implying that the "order" is not really an order but rather something like strong advice. But if the word "order" is retained here, I think that the non-binding nature of the order should be mentioned, either in a new sentence at the end of the quoted passage or by inserting "non-binding" before "order" in the first sentence. Comments? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)