But I saw a family law judge in Texas influence a jury?

Both the Alex Jones–Kelly Jones case and the Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas case went to jury trials. Although judges in those cases had some influence over the proceedings, they do not have the authority to direct a jury to reach a particular verdict. A judge’s role is limited to interpreting the law, managing courtroom procedure, and ensuring that the jury’s decision is based on the evidence and the correct legal standards. Judges can instruct juries on the burden of proof they must apply, but they cannot tell jurors how to interpret the facts.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is extremely high. In family courts, however, the evidentiary standard is far lower—so low that it often feels as though there is barely a standard at all. As a result, even when a party requests a jury, judges still wield significant power in shaping the outcome.

A dramatic example of judicial power overruling a jury occurred in India. Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a highly respected naval officer, was tried for killing his wife Sylvia’s lover. After dropping his wife and children at the movies, he confronted the man and shot him. A jury acquitted Nanavati.

However, two judges—Shelat and Naik—overturned the jury’s verdict, ruling that the killing was premeditated because Nanavati had time to cool off before the confrontation. They convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life in prison. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, with Justice Subba Rao declaring that “the jury system is not suited to the conditions obtaining in this country.” As a direct result of this jury’s decision to acquit, India abolished jury trials more than 60 years ago.

The hope is that such a loss of jury rights never occurs in the United States, where the jury system remains a core protection against judicial overreach.