Legal Definitions - compromise verdict

Compromise Verdict

A compromise verdict is a decision reached by a jury where some jurors agree to set aside their initial, strongly held views on certain aspects of a case in order to achieve a unanimous verdict and avoid a deadlock. This often involves a give-and-take among jurors, where they might concede on one issue (e.g., the defendant's level of responsibility) in exchange for agreement on another (e.g., the amount of damages). The primary goal of a compromise verdict is to prevent a "hung jury" and a subsequent mistrial, ensuring that the legal proceedings result in a definitive outcome.

Examples:

• Scenario 1: Personal Injury Case with Shared Fault
  

  In a civil lawsuit stemming from a car accident, some jurors believe the defendant was entirely at fault and should pay the maximum requested damages for the plaintiff's injuries and lost wages. Other jurors are convinced the plaintiff contributed significantly to the accident and should receive a much lower award, or even nothing. After extensive deliberation, they reach a compromise: they agree to find the defendant 60% responsible for the accident and award a moderate amount for damages, which is less than the plaintiff initially sought but more than the defendant offered. This allows them to avoid a hung jury, as neither side would budge from their extreme positions.

  How it illustrates the term: Jurors who initially held strong views on either 100% defendant fault or significant plaintiff fault adjusted their positions on the percentage of liability and the final damage amount. They "met in the middle" to ensure a unanimous verdict, rather than letting their differing opinions lead to a deadlock.

• Scenario 2: Criminal Case with Lesser Charges
  

  During a criminal trial for felony assault, some jurors are convinced the defendant acted in pure self-defense and should be acquitted. Conversely, other jurors believe the defendant was the aggressor and should be found guilty of the serious felony charge. Facing a stalemate, they discuss the possibility of a lesser offense. Ultimately, they agree to find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor battery, a less severe charge that acknowledges some wrongdoing but avoids the harsher penalties of a felony conviction. This decision satisfies enough jurors to achieve unanimity.

  How it illustrates the term: Jurors abandoned their initial "not guilty" or "guilty of the most serious charge" stances. They compromised by agreeing on a lesser included offense, demonstrating a willingness to adjust their individual convictions to reach a collective, unanimous verdict.

• Scenario 3: Breach of Contract Dispute
  

  In a business dispute over a broken contract, some jurors are adamant that the defendant intentionally breached the agreement and should pay not only compensatory damages (to cover losses) but also punitive damages (to punish the defendant). Other jurors believe the breach was unintentional and that only a minimal amount of compensatory damages is warranted. To reach a consensus, they agree to award only compensatory damages, but at a higher figure than some initially preferred, while dropping the demand for punitive damages entirely.

  How it illustrates the term: Jurors compromised on both the *type* of damages (foregoing punitive damages) and the *amount* of compensatory damages. They traded their strong beliefs about the defendant's intent and the appropriate financial penalty to ensure a unanimous decision in the complex civil case.