No. Where the jury acts, the jury acts as trier of fact only. The court routinely instructs the jury as to principles of law and their application, but the court, not the jury, determines the applicable law and how it is to be applied. In this, the jury has no discretion.
The "charge" to a jury is when the judge reads and explains the applicable law to the case the jury has just finished listening to, to aid and instruct them in their deliberation.
The judge's role is to determine what the law is and how the law applies to the facts of the case. The jury's job is to determine what the facts of the case are, based on the evidence presented in court.
A "bench trial" is a case heard by a judge without a jury. In a jury case, the jury decides the facts of the case -- what is true and not true -- and the judge decides the law. In a bench trial, the judge determines the facts and the law.
Jury instructions are presented by the judge to the jury. The judge explains what the laws are that govern the case at hand. Jury instructions define the elements of the charged offense and define the burden of proof. Each attorney gives the judge a set of proposed jury instructions. The judge considers each instruction and then decides which ones properly state the law that applies to the case. She then makes her instruction to the jury. The jurors must accept and follow the law as instructed by the judge and use that instruction in their deliberations as they weigh testimony and evidence presented at the trial. Jury instructions are not evidence.
At the completion of the trial the judge will "instruct" the jury in applicable law in effect in that particular state. If the defense raises "heat of passion" as a defense, the judge will instruct the jury of the applicable law which they then MAY consider. What goes on in a jury room is secret and no one will ever know (unless the jurors speak afterward) just WHAT the jury considered.
A judge can overrule a jury when there is a legal error in the jury's decision or if the judge believes the jury's decision is not supported by the evidence presented in the case.
Yes, in a civil case, a judge can overrule a jury's decision if they believe the jury made a legal error or if the verdict is not supported by the evidence presented in the case.
After the case is over and the judge has discharged the jury.
That depends on what "decide what the evidence is" means. The jury does not decide what evidence is admissible in the court; that is up to the judge, and is one of the judge's primary responsibilities. If the attorney for one side or the other thinks evidence should not be admitted, they can make a motion to suppress or exclude it on various grounds, or object during the trial. If the judge decides that the jury should not consider a certain piece of evidence that was introduced, he or she can instruct the jury to disregard it. The jury's only role is to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not (or to find for the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil case).
Yes, in some cases a judge can overrule a jury in a criminal case. This is known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and typically occurs when the judge believes the jury's decision is not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
Yes, a judge can overturn a jury verdict in a criminal case through a process called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) if the judge believes the jury's decision is not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
If a case reaches court, both sides present their story (or their 'evidence') before a judge or a jury. The outcome is then decided by the judge or jury.