Supreme JNOV

[ECL213]

I don’t think it’s referred to as a Judgment Notwithstanding a Verdict now, but what if the overwhelming evidence is tRump is guilty but the Senate acquits. Could the judge (Chief Justice) overrule the verdict?

I know this is pie in the sky speculation, but this would practically insure that John Roberts goes down in history as the MOST important CJ ever!!

[lastlib]

1. NO Constitutional basis for it.

All the power is vested in the Senate. The CJ is mostly just a pretty fixture.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. No.

The role of the Chief Justice in an impeachment trial is only to ensure that the Senate follows its own rules - he doesn't act as a regular trial judge. There is no provision for JNOV or judgment of acquittal in the Senate's impeachment rules.

[rsdsharp]

3. Even in a criminal case, which this is not,

a judge can't overturn an acquittal; only a verdict of guilty.

[lagomorph777]

6. And even if he COULD, you can't think a Russiapublican ever WOULD.

Not even a remote possibility.

[ECL213]

4. Meh..

That’s why I didn’t practice.

[SCantiGOP]

5. As explained in the Federalist Papers

The reason the CJ sits as the overseer of the process is the inherent conflict if the VP were presiding, since the VP would be in line to become POTUS if the Prez were convicted.
There are some important duties for the CJ, since he would rule on procedural disputes, but the Senate is solely responsible for the decision.
And if there happened to be a tie, the VP would not be able to vote to break it. Since the question is “Shall the POTUS be convicted,” a tie vote would mean the question did not carry.