The surprising super-powers of judges

Well, surprising to me anyway, I'm a naive fellow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1296452.html

Quote:

---

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A man who spent 18 months in an Australian jail for the drowning death of his wife during a diving trip in that country was acquitted of murder in Alabama on Thursday. A judge ended the trial with his acquittal ruling before the defense had even presented its case, saying prosecutors lacked evidence to prove Gabe Watson intentionally killed his wife.

Prosecutor Don Valeska, head of the violent crimes division for the state attorney general's office, said he never before had a trial end in a judge's acquittal in 41 years of trying cases, though that does sometimes happen, legal experts say.

---

This doesn't seem to be a particularly common occurrence, but what do you think about it? I was surprised by this because I always just assumed that the judge's role in a jury trial was to decide on punishment while it was the jury's duty to suss out guilt.

Doesn't the judge also rule whether a case is even allowed to go to a jury trial, based on the presented evidence? And what evidence is (in)admissible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This doesn't seem to be a particularly common occurrence, but what do you think about it?

---

Usually happens in response to a motion to dismiss. (Insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.) The prosecution must have presented a particularly unimpressive case for a judge to issue an acquittal ruling.

Indeed, if its quite a clear matter of law before the defence has even started that the prosecution has not proven their case then when they "rest" - since they can no longer add new evidence to the trial - the defence can ask for the judge to dismiss the case rather than having to waste the courts time continuing. Its rare though, prosecuters shouldn't be bringing a case they don't think has a reasonable chance of bringing a conviction. Sometimes prosecuters themselves can even ask for the case to be dismissed (eg in light of new evidence).

Its also possible but incredibly rare for a judge to immediately overturn a jury's guilty verdict, "set it aside". Can't recall that often happening though.

The judge can only use these powers to acquit, not to convict though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well, surprising to me anyway, I'm a naive fellow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1296452.html



This doesn't seem to be a particularly common occurrence, but what do you think about it? I was surprised by this because I always just assumed that the judge's role in a jury trial was to decide on punishment while it was the jury's duty to suss out guilt.

---

The jury gets to say if somebody is guilty, the judge gets to say if he gets tried in the first place.

Aww, what a disappointment, no flying, spider web throwing or teleportation involved here :(

Technically, the spider web throwing wasn't a super-power, but a gizmo. Most of the time, at least. I do not know what the current incarnation says on the matter, though :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The jury gets to say if somebody is guilty, the judge gets to say if he gets tried in the first place.

---

And also, as in the case here, if there's even sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to jury deliberations.

"Normally" prosecutors don't even take such weak cases to trial, but if they do, the judicial ability to decree that there's insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction is an important safeguard against the fact that people are generally moronic shitbags, and juries are made of 12 such people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Doesn't the judge also rule whether a case is even allowed to go to a jury trial, based on the presented evidence? And what evidence is (in)admissible?

---

Depends on the specific rules in the jurisdiction but yeah, it can be. And that judge or a different judge might be the one to actually try the case, again depending on the area. And a judge might take the actions above for all kinds of reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Technically, the spider web throwing wasn't a super-power, but a gizmo. Most of the time, at least. I do not know what the current incarnation says on the matter, though :(

---

I thought it and spider-sense were normally due to the radioactive spider. Although I know many incarnations do have it as a gizmo. I think spider-sense is always due to the spider though isn't it? Like you I have no idea about the current version.

My favourite superhero though is Batman, who has no superpowers besides maybe that of MONEY ;)

Emo playboy dude with a cape who inherits billions from his parents, basically the opposite of everything that makes Spider-Man so great :downcast:

Thanks for the clarification guys :up:

The irony with Batman is that on the one hand he's a billionaire playboy, far remote from all our normal lives, but on the other hand he is just a normal guy who does extraordinairy things with his own normal human strength and ingenuity (albeit a fair helping of money of course). In one way he is more normal than the other superheroes, on the other he's less. Plus he's got cooler enemies, Joker > Green Goblin.

edit: Batman is, at least nowadays I think, and inverted super-rich playboy in that he's completely unable to form human contact, and his real persona as the Batman is a complete sociopath. He's just as nuts as the freaks he fights, he just has different motivations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I thought it and spider-sense were normally due to the radioactive spider. Although I know many incarnations do have it as a gizmo. I think spider-sense is always due to the spider though isn't it? Like you I have no idea about the current version.

My favourite superhero though is Batman, who has no superpowers besides maybe that of MONEY ;)

---

Originally, from the radioactive spider bite Peter Parker got super strength (obviously not as much as the Hulk, but I think along the lines of Captain America?), agility and the spider sense. Oh, and the sticks to walls thing, duh. His background was as a smart kid from a not-so-wealthy family, and he invented the goop he used for web and the web shooters in his basement, or something like that. The black suit Spider-man shot web without mechanical aides, but that's because the black suit was in fact an alien symbiont.

Definitely got issues, but am not sure sociopath or nuts. He's got some people he can trust, typically Alfred at least. The boy wonder can be a bit weird too and isn't in many versions.

No super-powers you say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Originally, from the radioactive spider bite Peter Parker got super strength (obviously not as much as the Hulk, but I think along the lines of Captain America?), agility and the spider sense. Oh, and the sticks to walls thing, duh. His background was as a smart kid from a not-so-wealthy family, and he invented the goop he used for web and the web shooters in his basement, or something like that. The black suit Spider-man shot web without mechanical aides, but that's because the black suit was in fact an alien symbiont.

---

Oh, I didn't know that, in the Sam Raimi movies the web was a "superpower" too.

minx, nations have different standards of evidence, and different laws to prosecute. In this case, Australia had jailed him for something other than murder. Reckless endangerment, or something like not following standard diving procedures that led to injury/death (?)

The US judge basically dismissed the case for lack of evidence, by calling it an acquittal of charges. But that doesn't mean prosecutors can't file new charges, using different (better) evidence. That's not so much super-judge powers, but an example of how high the standards are for prosecuting murder charges.

I don't think that's going to happen, but even were it to doesn't jeopardy now apply?

Working on the assumption our government adheres to its constitution? How cute.