Legal Definitions - directed verdict

A directed verdict is a decision made by a trial judge that effectively ends a jury trial before the jury has a chance to deliberate. This occurs when the judge determines that, based on the evidence presented by the parties, no reasonable jury could possibly reach a different conclusion. In essence, the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, or so completely lacking for the other side on a critical point, that there are no disputed facts for the jury to weigh.

The judge essentially takes the case away from the jury because the outcome is legally predetermined by the evidence (or lack thereof). This can happen if a party has failed to present any proof on a crucial element of their claim, or if the evidence presented by one side is so compelling and undisputed that it leaves no room for reasonable disagreement.

While still a valid concept, the term "directed verdict" has largely been replaced in modern civil procedure by the term judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

• Example 1: Insufficient Evidence from the Plaintiff

  Imagine a plaintiff sues a construction company, claiming that the company's negligence caused damage to their property. During the trial, the plaintiff presents evidence of property damage but fails to introduce any evidence whatsoever that the construction company was involved in the work, or that any action by the company directly led to the damage. After the plaintiff finishes presenting their case, the construction company's attorney might ask for a directed verdict.

  Explanation: In this scenario, the judge would likely grant a directed verdict in favor of the construction company. Even if a jury believed the property was damaged, there is no evidence connecting that damage to the defendant. A reasonable jury could not find the construction company liable without any proof of their involvement or negligence, so the judge steps in to decide the case.

• Example 2: Overwhelming Evidence for the Defendant

  Consider a lawsuit where a customer claims a restaurant served them contaminated food, leading to illness. The customer testifies about their illness, but the restaurant presents irrefutable evidence, such as health inspection reports from the day in question showing perfect scores, detailed food preparation logs, and security camera footage demonstrating strict hygiene protocols, all without any contradictory evidence from the customer. The restaurant then moves for a directed verdict.

  Explanation: Here, the judge might issue a directed verdict for the restaurant. While the customer claims illness, the restaurant's evidence is so comprehensive and undisputed that no reasonable jury could conclude the food was contaminated due to the restaurant's fault. The facts presented leave no room for a different interpretation.

• Example 3: Criminal Case - Prosecution's Failure to Prove a Key Element

  In a criminal trial for burglary, the prosecution presents evidence that a house was broken into and items were stolen. However, despite calling several witnesses and presenting forensic reports, the prosecution fails to introduce any evidence whatsoever that links the defendant to the crime scene, the stolen items, or the act of breaking in. After the prosecution rests its case, the defense attorney moves for a directed verdict of acquittal.

  Explanation: In a criminal case, the burden of proof is very high ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). If the prosecution cannot present *any* evidence connecting the defendant to a crucial element of the crime (like being the person who committed the burglary), a reasonable jury could not convict. Therefore, the judge would grant a directed verdict of acquittal, ending the trial in the defendant's favor because the prosecution has failed to meet its legal burden.