A more thorough explanation:

A compromise verdict is a decision made by a jury when they cannot agree unanimously on a verdict. It happens when some jurors vote against their true beliefs on certain issues to avoid a deadlock. This type of verdict often involves issues of guilt or proper compensation.

For example, in a personal injury case, some jurors may believe that the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's injuries, while others may not. To avoid a mistrial, the jurors may compromise by agreeing to find the defendant partially liable and awarding a lower amount of compensation than the plaintiff requested.

Another example is in a criminal case where some jurors believe the defendant is guilty of murder, while others believe they are innocent. To avoid a mistrial, the jurors may compromise by agreeing to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, a lesser crime.

A compromise verdict is often a quid-pro-quo exchange or an agreement to meet-in-the-middle. In a quid-pro-quo exchange, one group of jurors may agree to vote that the defendant is liable in exchange for the other group agreeing to set the monetary damages low. In the meet-in-the-middle scenario, jury members who believe the defendant is completely innocent and jury members who believe the defendant is guilty of murder may agree to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, a lesser crime.

Juries may choose to utilize a compromise verdict because it limits the possibility of a mistrial. If a mistrial occurs, the case can be refiled, and a new trial will take place. This new trial may result in a verdict that makes no one on the current jury happy, making a compromise verdict more appealing by comparison.