Yes, a judge can overrule a jury, but only in narrow situations the law spells out in advance. In a civil case, a judge can set aside a verdict no reasonable jury could have reached, order a new trial when serious errors tainted the proceeding, or adjust damages that are clearly out of line with the evidence. In a criminal case, a judge can throw out a guilty verdict when the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient. The one thing no judge can do is undo a not-guilty verdict.
The Line a Judge Cannot Cross
A criminal acquittal is final. The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prevents anyone from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense.1Library of Congress. U.S. Constitution – Fifth Amendment Once a jury says not guilty, no judge and no prosecutor can undo it, even if a reviewing court would consider the acquittal legally wrong. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Fong Foo v. United States, holding that setting aside a judgment of acquittal and ordering a retrial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause regardless of whether the original acquittal was sound.2Justia. Fong Foo v United States, 369 US 141 (1962)
Everything else that follows is about the situations where a judge does have some room to act.
Overturning a Civil Verdict
In federal civil trials, the tool for overriding a jury is called judgment as a matter of law. It can be used twice: once before the case goes to the jury, and again after the verdict.
Before the Jury Deliberates
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), either party can move for judgment as a matter of law when the other side’s evidence is so thin that no reasonable jury could rule in its favor.3Legal Information Institute. Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial The judge has to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who would lose if the motion were granted.4LII / Legal Information Institute. Directed Verdict If the evidence overwhelmingly favors one side, the case never reaches the jury. This was historically called a directed verdict.
After the Jury Returns a Verdict
If the case went to the jury and came back the wrong way for the losing party, Rule 50(b) allows a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. This is the modern name for what used to be called judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV.5Cornell Law School. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
There is a procedural trap here. You can only bring the post-verdict motion if you first moved under Rule 50(a) before the case went to the jury, because the second motion is treated as a renewal of the first. The judge can only grant it on grounds raised in the original motion.3Legal Information Institute. Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial Miss that first filing and the door is closed.
The renewed motion has to be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. The standard is the same: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the winner, could any reasonable jury have reached that verdict? If not, the judge sets the verdict aside and enters judgment for the other side without a retrial.
Overturning a Criminal Conviction
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 lets a defendant move for a judgment of acquittal when the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.6Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. Rule 29 – Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal The judge can grant it before the jury deliberates or after the verdict.
After a guilty verdict, the defendant has 14 days to file the motion or renew an earlier one. If the judge finds the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient, the court sets aside the guilty verdict and enters an acquittal. The judge also has to make a conditional ruling on whether a new trial should be granted, in case the acquittal is later reversed on appeal.6Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. Rule 29 – Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal
The asymmetry matters. A judge can overturn a conviction but never an acquittal. The prosecution gets one chance to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a not-guilty verdict ends the case.
Ordering a New Trial Instead
Sometimes the problem is not who won but how the trial was run. Rather than declaring a different winner, a judge can order the case retried.
Civil Cases
A motion for a new trial in a federal civil case has to be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment under Rule 59.7Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment Common grounds include juror misconduct, improperly admitted or excluded evidence, and flawed jury instructions. The judge can also order a new trial on only some issues while leaving the rest of the verdict intact.
The bar is high. A trial error by itself is not enough. It has to be serious enough that it likely changed the outcome. Appellate courts review these decisions for abuse of discretion, so they only reverse when the trial judge’s ruling was clearly unreasonable.8LII / Legal Information Institute. Abuse of Discretion
Criminal Cases
In federal criminal cases, Rule 33 allows the defendant to move for a new trial “if the interest of justice so requires.”9Cornell Law School. Rule 33 – New Trial Newly discovered evidence is one of the most common grounds. Only the defendant can file this motion. The prosecution cannot seek a new trial after an acquittal because double jeopardy blocks it.
Adjusting the Damages Number
In civil cases, sometimes the verdict itself is fine but the dollar amount is not. Judges have two tools for this, and they operate very differently under federal law.
Remittitur
When a jury awards damages that are clearly excessive, the judge can order a remittitur. The plaintiff then has a choice: accept a reduced amount the judge considers reasonable, or go through a new trial on damages alone.10Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. Remittitur Because the plaintiff is not forced to take the reduction, remittitur has long been treated as constitutionally acceptable. The reasoning is that cutting an excessive award simply removes something the jury should not have included in the first place.
Additur
Additur works the other way, increasing an award the judge considers unreasonably low. The Supreme Court held in Dimick v. Schiedt that additur violates the Seventh Amendment and is not allowed in federal courts.11LII / Legal Information Institute. Dimick v Schiedt The Court drew a line between trimming excess the jury already put into its number and adding something the jury never found, which would replace part of the jury’s fact-finding with the judge’s.12LII / Legal Information Institute. Additur Some state courts allow additur under their own constitutions. In federal court, the only option when a damages award is too low is to seek a new trial on damages.
Why These Rulings Are Rare
Every mechanism above exists on paper, but judges reach for them infrequently. The Seventh Amendment states that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law,”13Cornell Law School. Seventh Amendment which keeps the jury as the finder of facts and limits a judge to the narrow procedures common law recognized.14LII / Legal Information Institute. Review of Evidentiary Record
The legal standard reinforces that limit. The question is never whether the judge would have decided the case differently. It is whether any reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the evidence presented. That is a generous test, and most verdicts clear it. Appellate courts also police trial judges who overuse these powers, reversing rulings that stretch too far. The result is a system deliberately designed to make overruling a jury harder than accepting one.