From what I understand, a judge hands down a decision; a jury hands one up. Is this correct usage and where does it come from?

Here's just an obviousizing guess:

The judge sits way up there on his grand perch. So, he hands a decision directionally downward to the mere mortals.

The jury, mere mortals, hand their decision directionally up to the judge on his grand perch.

Now, if there's more to the story, then tell away!

Here's just an obviousizing guess

You wins hands down, Wordwind.

Now, how come "winning hands down" is more decisive than just "winning"?

It's not because your opponent is out cold. It's because you have laid your cards on the table and the cards speak for themselves.

Glad I figured that out.

In my court, the judge (me) "publishes" an opinion while the jury "reaches" and then "returns" a verdict. But that is just one small court in one small state on the Left Coast of the US.

In my court, the judge (me) "publishes" an opinion while the jury "reaches" and then "returns" a verdict

Does your "opinion" always agree with the jury's "verdict", Father Steve?

If it does, are you really a "judge"?

And, if it doesn't, is the jury's decision really a "verdict"?

I'm not trying to be animositous, Father Steve. I'm just trying to get the lay of the juridical landscape.

Ah, terms of art. An opinion is not a verdict nor vice versa.

An opinion is what happens when an issue of law needs to be resolved by a judge. After rumination, his (or her) honour responds to the legal arguments of counsel and says "This is what the law means in this case or situation."

A verdict is what happens when a jury, instructed on the law by a judge, hears evidence and decides the facts of a case, and then decides the ultimate issue in the case by applying the law to the facts.

There is no occasion when there is, or needs to be, congruence between my legal opinions and the jury's verdict. Different provinces, wot?

Thanks, y'all. Dr Bill reached the same conclusion as Wordwind, and I like that one a lot.

There is no occasion when there is, or needs to be, congruence between my legal opinions and the jury's verdict. Different provinces, wot?

I understand .. I think. [And I'm an attorney. ]

AndPoint of interest : And Grand Jurys hand up indictment.

And Grand Jurys hand up indictment

And bad guys put their "hands up" when they get caught ... unless they've got their "hands in" a judge's docket.

According to the Revised Code of Washington 10.27.150, grand juries "issue" an indictment, "find" an indictment, and "present" an indictment, all without their hands, apparently:

"After hearing, examining and investigating the evidence before it, a grand jury may, in its discretion, issue an indictment against a principal. A grand jury shall find an indictment only when from all the evidence at least three-fourths of the jurors are convinced that there is probable cause to believe a principal is guilty of a criminal offense. When an indictment is found by a grand jury the foreman or acting foreman shall present it to the court."

as a recent Grand Jurier in queens county, state of NY, we 'returned true bills' or 'no true bill'.

they were not handed up or down. (well actually the chairman (a woman) and the co-chair (an other woman) did hand them down, since they sat at raised desks in the front of the GJ room.

(between cases, we watch for the red tailed hawk that build a nest in one of the few windows in the queen jail) he requently roosted on the corner of the queen county building, and often perched there to eat. )

"...And Grand Jurys hand up indictment."

Shouldn't that be, "Grands Jury"?? (or maybe even Grand Juries?)

stales

stales! How are ya, kid?