Opinion ID: 442774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Role of the Jury.

Text: 33 Although the right to a jury trial in a case may be clear, that right is never all-encompassing. It is, of course, a fundamental of the jury trial ... that the jury acts, not at large, but under the supervision of a judge. United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 242 (2d Cir.1972) (citation omitted). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge has both the right and the duty to determine prior to submitting a case to a jury whether there exist material issues of fact that are genuinely disputed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A factual dispute is material if it 'affects the outcome of the litigation,' and genuine if manifested by 'substantial' evidence 'going beyond the allegations [of the party opposing judgment.]'  Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 486 (1st Cir.1981). Thus upon proper pre-trial motion a trial judge must carefully sift the evidence submitted by all parties to determine whether disputes are factual (as opposed to legal) and genuine, and then further review and interpret relevant statutes, to see if any genuine factual dispute is material to the merits of the case. 34 Even after evidence has been presented to the jury, a judge must carefully review all the evidence before submitting the case for the jury's consideration, and determine whether each party has adduced evidence sufficient to warrant a verdict in its favor. If the court finds that such is not the case, it may grant a directed verdict without asking the jury for findings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a); Brady v. Southern Railway Co., 320 U.S. 476, 479-80, 64 S.Ct. 232, 234-35, 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943). Finally, even after a jury has rendered a verdict, if the trial court decides after careful reconsideration that the evidence was insufficient to submit the case to the jury after all, it has the power to grant a judgment non obstante veredicto and reverse the jury's verdict. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The exercise of the judicial prerogative to terminate a case must be painstaking. Nevertheless, whether there exist factual questions sufficiently disputed to warrant a verdict for either side is an issue of law, not fact, and its determination is quintessentially the function of the trial judge, not the jury. 35 Because of the constitutional status of the right to trial by jury, exercise of the judicial power to terminate a case is also subject to a stringent standard of review. Thus a directed verdict can be ordered only when, 36 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the party opposing the motion, the court] find[s] that, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence, there is only one verdict reasonable men could reach. 37 Trinidad v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 575 F.2d 983, 984 (1st Cir.1978), quoting Harrington v. United States, 504 F.2d 1306, 1311 (1st Cir.1974). The standard for reviewing a judgment n.o.v. is similar if not identical: The motion is properly granted only when, as a matter of law, no conclusion but one can be drawn. Rios v. Empresas Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 575 F.2d 986, 990 (1st Cir.1978); accord, Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, 685 F.2d 729, 733 (1st Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105, 103 S.Ct. 728, 74 L.Ed.2d 953 and 459 U.S. 1204, 103 S.Ct. 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 436 (1983). Nevertheless it should be clear that, while special deference is due the verdict of a civil jury, nothing in the Seventh Amendment removes the appellate court's duty to correct errors of law. Ballwanz v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 319 F.2d 457, 460 (4th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 970, 84 S.Ct. 1136, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 (1964). Thus, in a new drug case as in any other, the trial court as well as this court has an obligation to render judgment as a matter of law when it is clear from the evidence that such is required. 38