DocketX / Glossary / directed verdict
A directed verdict is a judge's decision to end a trial before the jury decides, because the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find for the other side.
It typically occurs after the plaintiff or prosecution has presented all its evidence, or after both sides have rested, when one party argues that the opposing side has failed to produce enough evidence to support a verdict in their favor. If granted, the judge enters judgment as a matter of law, effectively removing the case from the jury and ending the trial. This motion is made during trial, not before it starts.
If granted, a directed verdict can save time and expense by avoiding a pointless jury deliberation when the evidence legally cannot support a verdict for the other side. For someone facing a case, it means the judge has determined that the other side's legal case is insufficient, so the trial ends without a jury verdict.
A common misunderstanding is confusing a directed verdict with a summary judgment; summary judgment occurs before trial based on written submissions, while a directed verdict happens during trial after evidence has been presented. Another confusion is thinking it means the judge believes the moving party is factually correct, when in fact the judge is only ruling on the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Get the actual rule
This page explains the concept. When it matters to your case, read the rule that governs it in your court — we hold Texas, federal and Washington court rules word for word, and every state's official resources are on the state pages. If someone cites a case at you, check that it exists first.
Related
General explanation, not legal advice, and not specific to any state — procedures and deadlines vary by jurisdiction and court. If you can get a lawyer or free legal aid, do: every real option.