Direct verdict could be defined as a verdict which has been ordered by a trial judge in the event that the plaintiff fails to present a prima facie case or whereby the defendant is unable to present a necessary defence.The judge will enter a directed verdict if he/she concludes that the plaintiff is weak to merit a verdict in plaintiffs favor. (Currier&Eimermann, 2009, p.g135)
It can also be said that, direct verdict is whereby a court grants the verdict in the event that the party which is having the burden of proof has failed to furnish the courtroom with enough testimonies of a genuine fact that has to be submitted to the jury for resolutions.
A direct verdict is generally reserved for civil suits. The direct verdict will only be used in a criminal trial when there is a jury. The reason is that if the judge after soberly weighing the evidence and finds that it is insufficient to warrant a claimant victory, then the case is dissmissed.It can also happen that the jury not well conversant with the law may present a wrong verdict to the court.
.
A good example would be a judge who is presiding over a criminal case may decide to direct a verdict of acquittal on the accused on the basis that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused. The prosecution may also have failed to prove his/her case, in this light, the judge cannot place a verdict of guilty towards the suspect because by doing so he would be going against the rights of the accused.
A practical example that took place was between Kenneth s. Merber and a commercial property owner in the civil courts of the city of Newyork. Kenneth obtained a direct verdict in favor of the commercial owner.
Reference
Katherine, A.C., &.Eimermann, T.E., (2009).Introduction to paralegal studies critical thinking approach.Newyork: Aspen publishers.
