Legal Definitions - hung jury

Hung jury refers to a situation in a trial where a jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, or the required majority vote, on a verdict after extensive deliberation.

When a jury is hung, the judge must declare a mistrial. This means the trial ends without a legal resolution of the case. A hung jury does not mean the defendant is found innocent; rather, it signifies that the jury could not agree on guilt or innocence. Consequently, the prosecution often has the option to retry the case with a new jury. The legal principle of double jeopardy, which prevents someone from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply in cases of a mistrial due to a hung jury.

• Example 1: High-Stakes Robbery Trial

  In a criminal trial for armed robbery, the jury deliberates for three days. Despite intense discussions, six jurors firmly believe the defendant is guilty based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, while the other six are convinced there is reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence. With no juror willing to change their mind, they inform the judge they are deadlocked and cannot reach the unanimous verdict required for a criminal conviction.

  This illustrates a hung jury because the twelve jurors are irreconcilably split, preventing them from delivering a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. The judge would declare a mistrial, and the prosecution would then decide whether to pursue a retrial.

• Example 2: Civil Lawsuit for Medical Malpractice

  A patient sues a hospital for medical malpractice, seeking significant financial compensation. In this civil case, the jury needs a majority of nine out of twelve jurors to agree on liability and damages. After two days of deliberation, the jury foreman reports to the judge that they are stuck at an 8-4 split, with four jurors believing the hospital was negligent and eight believing it was not. No amount of further discussion changes the vote.

  Here, the jury is hung because they failed to achieve the required nine-person majority for a verdict in a civil case. Even though it's not a criminal trial, the inability to meet the voting threshold means the case ends in a mistrial, leaving the plaintiff without a resolution.

• Example 3: Complex Financial Fraud Case

  A corporate executive is on trial for a complex scheme of financial fraud. The evidence presented includes thousands of pages of financial documents and expert testimony. After a week of deliberation, the jury sends a note to the judge stating they are unable to reach a verdict. Some jurors are overwhelmed by the complexity and believe the prosecution hasn't proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt, while others are convinced by the expert analysis of the financial irregularities. They are deeply divided and cannot reconcile their differing interpretations of the evidence.

  This scenario demonstrates a hung jury where the complexity of the evidence contributes to the jurors' inability to agree. Despite extensive deliberation, the fundamental disagreement among jurors on the interpretation and weight of the evidence prevents them from reaching a unanimous decision, leading to a mistrial.