Another option is that the judge will allow the verdict to stand, knowing that no matter what she does the matter is going to be resolved by the Court of Appeals in any event.

Wait … did I just agree with everyone? What was it I ate for lunch?

I guess the only hope here on that would be the judge deciding that it was patently unreasonable for the jury to say that Bonds materially misled and evaded when he actually gave a straight answer to the question at issue.

But yes, not likely.

I know you understand: to get a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, you need an extraordinary case where the jury has gone so far afield that it’s appropriate to let the judge decide the case instead. You need something more than the jury doing something that the judge disagrees with, or even strongly disagrees with. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict means that we’re going to toss one of our most sacred principles out the window: namely, that criminal cases should be decided by juries and not by judges.

There’s another factor involved. Before the case goes to the jury, the defense made a motion for a “directed verdict”, which in essence is a motion that the case should be dismissed by the judge without letting the case reach the jury. I’m not an expert here and my memories of law school and bar exams are a bit hazy, but I think the grounds for a directed verdict are the same as the grounds for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Also, motions for directed verdicts are easier to get, since they don’t require the judge to say that the jury was wrong — in essence, we prefer not giving the jury the chance to be wrong over telling the jury that they were wrong after the fact. In any event, Judge Illston denied the motion for a directed verdict. That may not bode well for the defense effort to obtain a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this verdict being reversed.