In the United States,judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also calledjudgmentnon obstante veredicto, orJNOV, is a type ofjudgment as a matter of law that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of ajury trial.
InAmerican statecourts, JNOV is the practice whereby the presidingjudge in acivil jury trial may overrule the decision of ajury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions. In civil cases in U.S. federal court, the term was replaced in 1991 by therenewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to thejudgment as a matter of law, formerly called adirected verdict.[1]
A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a juryacquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant'sFifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy andSixth Amendment right to atrial by jury. If the judge grants amotion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution. This can only be appealed after a guilty verdict; a judgment cannot be appealed if made after the prosecution rests, but before the defense begins, rather than after a verdict. In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]
A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict as a matter of law. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury, thefinder of fact, still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment. Even if a judge erroneously excludes evidence and acquits on the basis of insufficient evidence, a judgement of acquittal cannot be appealed, as ruled by the Supreme Court inSanabria v. United States (1978).[3]
The reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. That procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called adirected verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[1]
  | This article relating tolaw in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |