Hung jury

Last updated

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

Contents

This situation can occur only in common law legal systems. Civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is immediately acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a singular, solemn vote.

Australia

Majority (or supermajority verdicts) are in force in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth courts require unanimous verdicts in criminal (but not civil) trials. [1]

Canada

In Canada, the jury must reach a unanimous decision on criminal cases. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, a hung jury is declared. A new panel of jurors will be selected for the retrial. Each jury in criminal courts contains 12 jurors. In civil cases, only six people are necessary for a jury, and if there is only one dissenter (i.e. a 5–1 vote), the dissenter can be ignored with the majority opinion becoming the final verdict. [2]

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the jury must try to reach a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict after a reasonable time given the nature and complexity of the case (but not less than four hours), then the court may accept a majority verdict. In criminal cases, an all-but-one vote is needed (i.e. 11–1 with a full jury); in civil cases, a three-quarters (75%) vote is needed (i.e. 9–3 with a full jury). [3]

If the jury fails to reach either a unanimous or majority verdict after a reasonable time, the presiding judge may declare a hung jury. [4] Ordinarily there will be a new trial. [5] If the retrial also results in a hung jury, the case must be referred to the Solicitor-General, who will generally issue a stay of proceedings unless there are compelling reasons to proceed with a third trial. [6]

United Kingdom

England and Wales

Majority verdicts have been allowed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Before this all criminal convictions required a unanimous verdict. At least 10 votes out of 12 is needed for a valid majority verdict. If fewer jurors remain, majorities allowed are 11–0, 10–1, 10–0, 9–1 and 9–0. Failure to reach this may lead to a retrial (R v. Bertrand, 1807). [7]

Initially, the jury will be directed to try to reach a unanimous verdict. If they fail to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge may later give directions that a majority verdict will be acceptable, although the jury should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict if possible. The judge may not give these directions before at least two hours [8] of deliberation, however in practice it is often given after much longer than two hours. [7]

When the jury is called to deliver a verdict after majority directions have been given, a careful protocol of questions is followed: only in the event of a guilty verdict is it asked whether all jurors were agreed on that verdict, to prevent any acquittal from being tainted by it being disclosed that any jurors dissented. The protocol is followed separately for each charge. [9] Majority verdicts are treated the same as unanimous ones, for example they are not taken as a mitigating factor during sentencing. [7]

Scotland

It is not possible to have a hung jury in Scotland in criminal cases. Juries consist of 15, and verdicts are decided by simple majority (eight) of the initial membership. If jurors drop out because of illness or another reason, the trial can continue with a minimum of 12 jurors, but the support of eight jurors is needed for a guilty verdict; anything less is treated as an acquittal. [10]

In civil cases there is a jury of 12, with a minimum of 10 needed to continue the trial. It is possible to have a hung jury if there is a tied vote after three hours' deliberation. [11]

United States

Majority verdicts are not allowed in civilian criminal cases in the United States. A hung jury results in a mistrial. The case may be retried ( United States v. Perez , 1824).

Louisiana, which was historically influenced by the French civil law system, and Oregon used to allow 10–2 majority verdicts. In the 2020 case Ramos v. Louisiana , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury must vote unanimously to convict in any criminal offense that requires a jury trial.

Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last-ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, "The verdict must be unanimous. ... If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed. ... If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed. ... If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. A hung jury does not imply either the defendant's guilt or innocence. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree." [12]

In jurisdictions giving those involved in the case a choice of jury size (such as between a six-person and twelve-person jury), defense counsel in both civil and criminal cases frequently opt for the larger number of jurors. A common axiom in criminal cases is that "it takes only one to hang," referring to the fact that in some cases, a single juror can defeat the required unanimity.

One proposal for dealing with the difficulties associated with hung juries has been to introduce supermajority verdicts to allow juries to convict defendants without unanimous agreements amongst the jurors. Hence, a 12-member jury that would otherwise be deadlocked at 11 for conviction and one against, would be recorded as a guilty verdict. The rationale for majority verdicts usually includes arguments related to so-called 'rogue jurors', who unreasonably impede the course of justice. Opponents of majority verdicts argue that it undermines public confidence in criminal justice systems and results in a higher number of individuals to be convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In United States military justice, there are no hung juries. If the threshold for a conviction is not met, the defendant is acquitted. Article 52 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) specifies the minimum number of court-martial panel members required to return a verdict of guilty. In a capital case, a unanimous vote of all panel members is required to convict on a capital charge.

In all other cases, only a three-fourths vote is required to convict. Additionally, the Manual for Courts-Martial requires only a judge and a specified number of panel members in all non-capital cases (eight for a general court-martial or three for a special court-martial; no panel is seated for a summary court-martial). In capital cases, a panel of 12 members is required.

Hung jury in capital sentencing

Of the 27 U.S. states with the death penalty, 25 require the sentence to be decided by a jury.

Two states do not use juries in death penalty cases:

Two states do not require a unanimous jury decision:

In all states in which the jury is involved, only death-qualified prospective jurors can be selected in such a jury, to exclude both people who will always vote for the death sentence and those who are categorically opposed to it. However, the states differ on what happens if the penalty phase results in a hung jury: [17] [18]

The first outcome is referred as the "true unanimity" rule, while the third has been criticized as the "single-juror veto" rule. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury nullification</span> Type of jury verdict in criminal trials

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

  1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
  2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

In common law, a petit jury hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases involving serious felonies there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases. However, the common law trial jury is the most common type of jury system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a "not guilty" verdict

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the criminal prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

Jury tampering is the crime of unduly attempting to influence the composition or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial. The means by which this crime could be perpetrated can include attempting to discredit potential jurors to ensure they will not be selected for duty. Once selected, jurors could be bribed or intimidated to act in a certain manner on duty. It could also involve making unauthorized contact with them for the purpose of introducing prohibited outside information and then arguing for a mistrial. In the United States, people have also been charged with jury tampering for handing out pamphlets and flyers indicating that jurors have certain rights and obligations, including an obligation to vote their conscience notwithstanding the instructions they are given by the judge.

A system for trial by jury was first introduced in 1923 under Prime Minister Katō Tomosaburō's administration. Although the system generated relatively high acquittal rates, it was rarely used, in part because it required defendants to give up their rights to appeal the factual determinations made. The system lapsed by the end of World War II. In 2009, as a part of a larger judicial reform project, laws came into force to introduce citizen participation in certain criminal trials by introducing lay judges. Lay judges comprise the majority of the judicial panel. They do not form a jury separate from the judges, as in a common law system, but participate in the trial as inquisitorial judges next to professional judges in accordance with the civil law legal tradition – similar to the French cour d'assises – who actively analyze and investigate evidence presented by the defense and prosecution.

In France, a cour d'assises, or Court of Assizes or Assize Court, is a criminal trial court with original and appellate limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants accused of felonies, meaning crimes as defined in French law. It is the only French court that uses a jury trial.

A United States military "jury" serves a function similar to an American civilian jury, but with several notable differences. Only a general court-martial or special court-martial includes members. There are no members in a trial by summary court-martial. If the defendant at a general or special court-martial chooses to be tried by members rather than by a military judge alone, the members are responsible for rendering both a verdict and sentence should the accused be found guilty. The charges are brought forward by an officer called a "convening authority", who also selects the members who try the accused. The charges are prosecuted by judge advocates called "trial counsel". Defendants facing general or special courts-martial are represented free of charge from judge advocates acting as defense counsel. Defendants may also be represented at general or special courts-martial by civilian attorneys hired at their own expense. While not required by Congressional law, service policy provides that, at summary courts-martial, many military accused receive representation from a judge advocate defense counsel free of charge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in Florida</span>

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Florida.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.

Capital punishment is a legal punishment in American Samoa, an unincorporated territory of the United States. The only crime punishable by death is first degree murder. American Samoa last executed a prisoner by hanging on 24 November 1939. The territory is de facto abolitionist.

Capital punishment is a legal punishment in Pennsylvania. Despite remaining a legal penalty, there have been no executions in Pennsylvania since 1999, and only three since 1976. In February 2015, Governor Tom Wolf announced a formal moratorium on executions that is still in effect as of 2024, with incumbent Governor Josh Shapiro continuing Wolf's moratorium. However, capital crimes are still prosecuted and death warrants are still issued.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.


Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.

References

  1. ↑ "Ten or Eleven Out of Twelve Ain't Bad". 25 November 2014.
  2. ↑ "Canada's System of Justice: The Role of the Public". Department of Justice. 2015-05-07.
  3. ↑ "Juries Act 1981. Sections 29C and 29D". Parliamentary Counsel Office. 1 July 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
  4. ↑ Juries Act 1981. Section 22(3)(b)
  5. ↑ Young, Warren; Cameron, Neil; Tinsley, Yvette (1999). Juries in Criminal Trials: Part Two (PDF). Preliminary Paper 37. Vol. 2. Wellington: Law Commission. p. 65. Retrieved 23 September 2024.
  6. ↑ "Solicitor-General's Prosecution Guidelines" (PDF). Crown Law Office. 1 July 2013. p. 23. Retrieved 23 September 2024.
  7. 1 2 3 Waller, Nisha; Sakande, Naima (1 April 2024). "Majority jury verdicts in England and Wales: a vestige of white supremacy?". Race & Class. 65 (4): 26–52. doi:10.1177/03063968231212992. ISSN   0306-3968.
  8. ↑ "Juries Act 1974". www.legislation.gov.uk.
  9. ↑ "Part IV: Further Practice Directions Applying in The Crown Court". 23 May 2010. Archived from the original on 23 May 2010.
  10. ↑ Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 section 90
  11. ↑ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/41/section/11s [ dead link ]
  12. ↑ Rule 31, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
  13. ↑ "2014 Nebraska Revised Statutes – Chapter 29 – CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – 29-2521 – Sentencing determination proceeding". law.justia.com. Retrieved April 16, 2017.
  14. ↑ "46-18-301. Hearing on imposition of death penalty". leg.mt.gov. Retrieved April 16, 2017.
  15. ↑ "State of Alabama Criminal Code 2017" (PDF). inform.alabama.gov. p. 76. Retrieved 27 March 2024.
  16. ↑ "Statute 921.141 - Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence". leg.state.fl.us. Retrieved 27 March 2024.
  17. ↑ "Provisions of state and federal statutes concerning sentence if capital sentencing jury cannot agree" (PDF). A. Parrent, Conn. Public Def. Retrieved March 15, 2016.
  18. ↑ "SB 280: Sentencing for Capital Felonies". flsenate.gov. Retrieved March 15, 2017.
  19. ↑ See United States v. Perez , 1824
  20. ↑ "The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review". U.S. Department of Justice. June 6, 2001. If the jury does recommend a capital sentence, the court is required to sentence the defendant accordingly. If the jury does not unanimously agree that the death penalty should be imposed, the defendant is given a lesser (non-capital) sentence. 18 U.S.C. 3593-94.
  21. ↑ Scheidegger, Kent S. (February 4, 2016). "Hurst v. Florida Remedial Legislation and SBP 7068" (PDF). crimeandconsequences.com.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.