الحكم

في القانون ، يُعرَّف الحكم بأنه النتيجة الرسمية للوقائع التي تُصدرها هيئة المحلفين بشأن المسائل أو الأسئلة التي يعرضها القاضي عليها . [ ^{1 ] في} المحاكمات التي يُصدرها القاضي أمام هيئة المحلفين ، يُشار إلى قرار القاضي قرب نهاية المحاكمة ببساطة باسم "النتيجة". ^{[ 2 ]} في إنجلترا وويلز ، كانت نتائج الطبيب الشرعي تُسمى سابقًا "أحكامًا"، ولكنها تُسمى منذ عام 2009 "استنتاجات" (انظر: الطبيب الشرعي §  استنتاجات التحقيق (التي كانت تُسمى سابقًا "أحكامًا") ).

مصطلح "verdict"، من الكلمة اللاتينية veredictum ، يعني حرفيًا "قول الحقيقة" وهو مشتق من الإنجليزية الوسطى verdit ، من الأنجلو-نورمانية : مركب من ver ("صحيح"، من الكلمة اللاتينية vērus ) و dit ("خطاب"، من الكلمة اللاتينية dictum ، وهي صيغة اسم المفعول المحايد من dīcere ، بمعنى "يقول").

في القضايا الجنائية ، تصدر هيئة المحلفين حكمها إما "غير مذنب" أو "مذنب". وقد تختلف الأحكام باختلاف التهم في القضية نفسها.

إن الحكم بالإدانة في قضية جنائية يتطلب عمومًا اختبار الأدلة والتأكد من صحتها بما لا يدع مجالاً للشك ^{[ 3 ]} وعادة ما يتبعه حكم بالإدانة يصدره القاضي، والذي يتبعه بدوره إصدار الحكم .

في المصطلحات القانونية الأمريكية، يُشير الحكم إلى قرار هيئة المحلفين بشأن المسائل الواقعية المعروضة عليها. وبمجرد أن تتسلم المحكمة (القاضي) الحكم، يُصدر القاضي حكمه النهائي. ويُعدّ حكم المحكمة هو القرار النهائي في القضية. وفي حال إدانة المتهم، يحق له استئناف الحكم أمام محكمة الاستئناف المحلية.

كان الحكم الفريد في القانون الاسكتلندي " غير مثبت " متاحًا سابقًا كحكم ثالث في المحاكمات الجنائية في اسكتلندا ؛ وكان يُعامل كشكل من أشكال البراءة. وقد أُلغي في عام 2026. ^{[ 4 ]}

A compromise verdict is a "verdict which is reached only by the surrender of conscientious convictions upon one material issue by some jurors in return for a relinquishment by others of their like settled opinion upon another issue, and the result does not command the approval of the whole panel", and, as such, is not permitted.^[5]

In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could decide to the contrary. After a directed verdict, the jury no longer needs to decide the case.

A judge may order a directed verdict on an entire case or only on specific issues.

In a criminal case in the United States, once the prosecution has closed its case, the defendant may move for a directed verdict.^[6] If granted, the verdict will be "not guilty".^[6] The prosecution may never seek a directed verdict of guilty, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and rebut the prosecution's case and have a jury determine guilt or innocence (where a defendant has waived their right to a jury trial and allowed the judge to render the verdict, this still applies).

In the American civil legal system, the concept of directed verdict has largely been replaced by judgment as a matter of law.

In England and Wales, the equivalent motion, likewise made by the defence after the prosecution rests, is known as a motion of no case to answer. The judge may not direct a verdict of guilty under any circumstances: see R v Wang.

A general verdict is when the jury makes a complete finding and a single conclusion on all issues presented. First, the jury finds the facts, as proved by the evidence, then applies the law as instructed by the court, and finally, it returns a verdict in one conclusion that settles the case. Such verdict is reported as follows:

We the Jury find the issues for the plaintiff (or defendant, as the case may be) and assess his damages at one hundred thousand dollars.

A sealed verdict is put into a sealed envelope when there is a delay in announcing the result, such as waiting for the judge, the parties, and the attorneys to return to court. The verdict is kept in a sealed envelope until the court reconvenes and then handed to the judge.^[7] This practice is virtually the default in many U.S. jurisdictions or may be the preference of the judge involved.

In English law, a special verdict is a verdict by a jury that makes specific factual conclusions rather than (or in addition to) the jury's declaration of guilt or liability. For example, jurors may write down a specific monetary amount of damages or a finding of proportionality in addition to the jury's ultimate finding of liability. A special jury verdict form may be used to have the jury answer directed questions as to the required elements for a cause of action or special issues and to demarcate monetary awards of damages by economic and non-economic damages, beneficiary, and specific categories of damages (lost earning capacity, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, etc.).^[8] In the words of William Blackstone, "The jury state the naked facts, as they find them to be proved, and pray the advice of the court thereon".^[9] Special verdicts are intended to focus the jury's attention on the important questions at hand.^[10]

The judge forced a special verdict in the famous 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens, which established a precedent that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder but, generally, it is recommended that such verdicts should only be returned in the most exceptional cases.^[11][12]

The jury has a historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason, Justices Black and Douglas indicated their disapproval of special verdicts even in civil cases.^[13]

• Virtual jury research

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Verdict" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.