But juries are not bound to follow the judge's instructions, are they? I even remember the report of one trial in which the judge directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict and one of them refused point blank to do so.

MGM, different jurisdictions have different rules. I don't know what jurisdiction you are in and inquiring about. BUT . . .

I spent 36 years working as an Official Court Reporter for the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. So what I say in this post is heavily based on my experience of US federal procedure, and then to a lesser degree on what I have understood along the way about the rules in the Indiana and some other state courts.

In the US, the various states and also the federal law provide differently for the function of the jury. In the Judge's orientation of the jury at the beginning of their service and then in the Instructions to the Jury at the end of a trial, it was always made clear and explicit that the jury MUST follow the Judge's instructions on the law. Note, "on the law".

When a civil jury goes wildly wrong on the law as they had been instructed, my recollection is that the Judge may set the verdict aside on his own motion. The other party may, of course, appeal his ruling to the relevant appellate court.

If they go way high on the amount of judgment, the losing party may request a ruling non obstante veredicto, or "notwithstanding the verdict", asking the Judge to cut the amount back to an amount which could be justified by the evidence presented. If he does, of course that ruling is appealable also.

I'm unable express an informed opinion on the propriety of a ruling in a Coroner's trial in any jurisdiction, of course, because my education and career experience have not touched on that sort of forum. I can only say that I suspect that the Coroner knows his powers and duties. I must rely on the legal presumption that a public officer will do his duty, which we all know is not always true in the real world.

Dave Oesterreich