A direct verdict is when a judge stops a trial due to lack of evidence, resulting in dismissal or acquittal. Attorneys can file a motion for a direct verdict, but it is rare. The judge evaluates the case and may consult with the client. A direct verdict cannot be guilty and the defense can still refute claims.
A straight verdict is a case where a judge halts a trial on the grounds that the burden of proof has not been met and there is only one possible verdict in the case, which would be dismissal in a civil case and the acquittal in the case of a criminal. Direct verdicts are rare, but they do happen. Attorneys can file a motion for a direct verdict or a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the other party has not presented enough evidence to prove their case.
Direct verdicts occur when it is clear that the party who has the burden of proof has not fulfilled it and that, as a matter of law, the court cannot rule in favor of this party. This can occur for a variety of reasons, ranging from poorly presented evidence to a lack of evidence to support the allegations brought to court. While the jury can decide questions of fact after hearing all the evidence, judges can assess the fact of law and determine that a party has no cause and that the trial should not go ahead.
When an attorney files a motion for a direct verdict, the judge will evaluate the legal aspects of the case and determine whether or not a direct verdict is tenable. Many attorneys file such motions with no realistic hope of the judge returning a straight verdict, but it could be a step in the legal process for a given case. If the request is rejected, the lawyer will have to present a request that refutes the opposing party’s thesis.
Lawyers discuss the motions they plan to bring in court with their clients, to allow their clients the opportunity to have input into the handling of the case. Also, explaining helps people understand how the legal process works so they can follow the events of the course.
Historically, when a direct verdict was returned, judges would order the jury to return the verdict, whereas today a direct verdict can be returned without consulting the jury. The direct verdict cannot be guilty, as this would deprive someone of a fair trial; if the burden of proof of guilt appears satisfied, the defense still has the opportunity to refute the claims made by the opposing counsel in their arguments. Failure to present a defense would be considered a mistrial.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
