Jommeke schreef:
[quote=M.A.D.W.]
[quote=Markweb4]
`In simpler words, the judge should determine if the jury could legally and reasonably have arrived at its decision given the evidence presented. `
Waarom zou de Judge in eerste instantie niet hebben geoordeeld of de jury het bij het juiste eind heeft/had op basis van de gegevens die toen bekend waren?
[/quote]
Het geeft aan dat de rechtzaak nog een wending kan krijgen. En dat INSM zelfs nog voor een nieuwe JMOL kan filen.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Renewed judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is the partner of judgment as a matter of law in American federal courts.
Renewed judgment as a matter of law has replaced judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) through Rule 50 of the Federal rules of civil procedure. Renewed JMOL is a party's second chance at a judgment as a matter of law motion. Renewed JMOL is decided after a jury has returned its verdict. The same standards as JMOL apply. The difference is that renewed JMOL can only be raised if JMOL had been raised before the jury began deliberations. Seventh Amendment due process concerns demand this formality, as decided by the Supreme Court in Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewed_JMOL"