IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OPINION OF ...

Stevens v. People of the V.I.
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2007-126
Opinion of the Court
Page 13
court sits as a thirteenth juror. See, e.g., Gov’t of the V.I. v. Davis, 35 V.I. 72, 85 (Terr.Ct. 1997)
(citing Gov’t of the V.I. v. Grant, 19 V.I. 440 (Terr. Ct. 1983); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Leycock, 19
V.I. 59, 62 (D.V.I. 1982)); see also Wright & Miller, supra at §553
Stevens seizes on the language that the trial court sits as a thirteenth juror and argues that
the court in the instant case “did not act as a ‘thirteenth juror’ independently weighing evidence
and considering credibility. Rather, the Trial Court viewed the evidence from the vantage point
of what the jury could reasonably conclude.” (Appellant’s Br. 15.)
As a threshold matter, Stevens has misplaced his insistence that the Superior Court
should have acted as a thirteenth juror. While some older decisions of courts within this
jurisdiction have relied on the principle that a trial court can weigh the evidence and consider the
credibility of the witnesses as if it were sitting as a thirteenth juror, see, e.g., Davis, 35 V.I. at 85;
Grant, 19 V.I. at 445, other decisions have patently rejected the notion that a trial court may
simply reject a jury’s verdict merely because the judge would have reached a different verdict.
See Gov’t of the V.I. v. Commissiong, 706 F.Supp. 1172, 1184 (D.V.I. 1989) (citing United
States v. Levy, 694 F.Supp. 1136, 1144-45 (D.N.J. 1988)); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Baron, 48 V.I. 88,
93 (V.I.Super. 2006). In addition, we are unaware of opinions from the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit that adopt the “thirteenth juror” standard, and it appears that at least one other
federal circuit court of appeals has expressly rejected the standard. See United States v.
Rothcock, 806 F.2d 318, 322 (1st Cir. 1986) (observing that “this court has emphatically stated
that a trial judge is not a thirteenth juror who may set aside a verdict merely because he would
have reached a different result. (citations omitted)). While it remains the law that a trial court
should weigh the evidence, a new trial should not be granted unless the court believes that there