Who said it was all powerful? The judge can only direct in matters of law - they cannot tell the jury to give a verdict based on their own opinion. I'm surprised you disagree with this. Wheres ac when you need him...

I think what Rae is getting at is the fact that, by the time the matter actually gets to trial, a huge amount of the "evidence" has been excluded (Rae's reference to legal argument). Unfortunately, the State's idea of what is appropriate evidence is very often different from what the law's view is. Cock ups with the investigation etc sometimes exclude evidence which the State would love to be able to adduce.

Once it gets to trial, the Judge is there to ensure proper process and, generally, the advocates police such things themselves and the Judge's intervention is not required (the Holywood "Objection" simply doesn't happen). The jury are the deciders of fact and the Judge has no input with this at all. Both parties have an opportunity to sum up and will put their own slant on such things. The Judge will also provide an overview of both the evidence and the law (for example, for a finding of theft will state that there must be a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive, believe it or not there are 5 elements here dishonest, appropriation, property belonging to another, intention and permanently deprive -each will need to be explained) but must be scrupulously fair when doing so otherwise the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

The State will always bitch about how the conviction would have been a slam dunk but for evidence being excluded, the jury not understanding the issues, the Judge screwing up etc, the defence will state likewise if they believe a conviction was wrong.

Yes, there have been instances of a jury rejecting everything that a Judge says and making findings which seem wonky. However, one could argue that, when they do so, they are actually reflecting society's view of the law, acquiting when they think the law is crap, convicting when they think otherwise. It's not correct, but it does happen.

I have never practised criminal law but I sat in the dock enough as a prison officer to have experience of how it works. I could never be a criminal defence lawyer and the prosecutors do not get paid enough to make it an option I have ever considered.

and there was me thinking you were a budding Miles Edgeworth.

i never said they can "tell a jury what to do based on their own opinion" you are twisting my quote to try and make it fit into your idea. here is an idea, just admit on this one that you are wrong, is that such a stretch.
AC puts it better than me below and i think you will find if you read what i put, which was a general reply, not particularly at you, it says everything AC says.

The Judge DIRECTS. For example all the elements of the case have not been proven (as per the example AC gives) therefore i would DIRECT you to to find the accused not guilty in this matter should you find the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of the elements proven. I have PERSONALLY heard this many times, why is this so difficult for you to accept. please furnish us with your examples to the contrary.

Eh? I originally said 'juries decide facts, the judge decides the law' - I'm not twisting your words, you contradicted that simple fact. I never said the judge can't direct - I said the judge cannot give his opinion (check every one of my posts on this matter if you like).

rae, you are arguing against a view I don't hold and I think I'm doing the same thing...

I sat as a juror in a (relatively straightforward) fraud trial once. Well, for the first four days of one, anyway. At that point the defence counsel noticed that some documents that had been placed in the jury "bundle" had not actually been agreed into evidence and were likely to be contested by the defence. The judge had to dismiss us and start again with a new jury. I was very relieved, since staying awake would likely have been a major issue if the trial had gone on. I was trying to do my regular job before, after and in between sessions in court. Mind you, from a juror's perspective, court days are incredibly short - I'm sure the lawyers and judges and whatnot have other tasks that don't involve the jury, but it all seemed pretty slack and "oh, there's no point in calling the next witness now, it's lunchtime soon, let's adjourn and come back in three hours" to me.

G20 officer will not be disciplined........

I wonder if she's going to turn up in Ontario and try doing the the same thing again?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100617...d-6323e80.html

If she does, she should tune in to local/Canadian politics...that should eradicate any political fervour she may be harbouring....and is likely to be bored to death.....