|
The US system is generally as follows:
1. Not all cases are tried before a jury. The parties to a suit, or the defendant in a criminal case, may opt to have the matter heard without a jury.
2. A case may be bifurcated, such that the guilt and penalty phases of a trial are heard separately. I have never heard of one phase being jury and the other being judge only ... so I think once you have decided on one, that also determines the other.
3. In jury cases, the judge has the power to completely disregard the jury verdict, both with regard to guilt and damages. It's not something that is done lightly, but it has happened. Really, it's sort of a safeguard against "jury nullification" ... where the jury entirely disregards the law because they don't happen to like the law .... or they really like one of the parties.
But, yes .... one of the reasons that attorneys like to argue to a jury is because they are more likely to get an emotional response in the form of a larger damage award.
The whole litigation system is a game I prefer to avoid. I think that's why I went into the transactional side of things. Every court case I've worked on, I've just done the research and sat second (or third) chair. It's an interesting process ... but way too much drama and manipulation for my taste.
|