Talk:Verdict

from VFD

Verdict. Normally I'd say more to Wiktionary, but this sub-stub definition is misleading. There are certainly other verdicts besides the two listed. RickK 00:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Then expand, please. - Patrick 02:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, at the very least as a disambig. page for the various sorts of verdicts we already have articles on. Something more encyclopedic on the different sorts of verdicts that exist and have existed throughout history might be interesting as well. --Delirium 07:44, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Those pesky Latin verbs

I'm no expert on Latin, but I changed the references in the main article regarding the Latin verb dicere and its forms. I think dicere is closer to the English verbs "to say" or "to tell" than it is to the verb "to speak."

For example, in French the descendant form of dicere is dire, meaning "to say" or "to tell." The French infinitive parler is closer to the verbs "to talk" and "to speak." Any Latin experts out there who can help us? For dicere, is "say" more correct than "speak"? Yours, Famspear 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What often follows a guilty verdict?

An appeal. I would agree that some expansion of the article would be a good idea.69.6.162.160 02:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson[reply]

True. I've added into the article that a defendent found guilty may appeal his case to the Court of Appeals. --Defender 911 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority verdicts

I'm not sure whether this would belong in this article or in another, related one, but it seems to me that at least a brief discussion of the laws/rules surrounding majority verdicts would be useful, given that they vary considerably around the world (eg in England and Wales a judge can accept a 10-2 verdict, even in murder cases). Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in jury trials?

According to the present definition, a verdict is exclusively given by a jury. What about bench trials, where there is no jury? How else to call the outcome presented by the trier of fact in such cases? Is the article (and Mr. Black, assuming the citation is correct) unduly restrictive? --Lambiam 15:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not A Lawyer: but in England we have coroners who give verdicts on cause of death: Coroner#Verdict 78.146.29.250 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the answer, but I created finding (law).--172.56.32.247 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Should I Waive a Jury Trial and Instead Have a Bench Trial?, I quote "A bench trial is also faster and the judge often returns a “finding” (the functional equivalent of a verdict) much quicker than in a jury trial.". I note that the page uses the word "verdict" three times.--172.56.32.247 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners in England do not give verdicts, they give conclusions. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf DanBCDanBC (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales Coroners produce Conclusions, not verdicts.

In England and Wales the coroner will issue a conclusion, not a verdict. These are colloquially known as verdicts, but that's informal use. The correct term is conclusion. Here's a government-level source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf DanBCDanBC (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]