Could Judge Ito have ordered a directed verdict, or set aside the jury's decision?

I am far from an expert on California criminal law, but in my experience it's quite common for attorneys to move for a directed verdict after arguments have concluded. It's kind of a pro forma thing, and it's seldom granted, but the option exists. Similarly, I've heard of judges "setting aside" jury decisions.

Did Ito have these options? If ever there were a legitimate time to use such prerogatives, it would have been at that trial, and I think about 85% of adults at the time would have been perfectly OK with that. Others would have rioted, I guess, but the law is the law, and people have mentioned in other threads just how corrosive the acquittal was for things like race relations and public trust.

I've never seen this discussed, but I think it's a really necessary and interesting topic to consider. Maybe Ito even felt some kind of anti-white solidarity with OJ. Sounds shocking, but I think most people were similarly shocked by the way the black community reacted to the verdict. We shouldn't be shocked at the possibility that Ito was influenced by this previously unknown racial schadenfreude lurking under the veneer of civility we once enjoyed.