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.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While a motion from a party to impose a directed verdict is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may order a directed verdict only for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
This concept has largely been replaced in the American legal system with judgment as a matter of law.
Famous quotes containing the words directed and/or verdict:
“Anger is always concerned with individuals, ... whereas hatred is directed also against classes: we all hate any thief and any informer. Moreover, anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot. The one aims at giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victim to feel; the hater does not mind whether they feel or not.”
—Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
“The verdict on Prince Metternich will soon be out: An excellent diplomat and a bad politician.”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)