Legal Definitions - split verdict

A split verdict occurs in a legal trial when a jury or a judge delivers different decisions on various aspects of the same case. Instead of a single "guilty" or "not guilty" outcome for the entire proceeding, the verdict is divided. This can happen when there are multiple defendants, multiple distinct charges against a single defendant, or multiple counts within a single charge.

Essentially, a split verdict means that some parts of the case result in a conviction (a finding of guilt) while other parts result in an acquittal (a finding of not guilty), or different outcomes for different parties involved in the same trial.

• Example 1: Multiple Defendants

  Imagine two individuals, Alex and Ben, are tried together for a bank robbery. After hearing all the evidence, the jury finds that Alex was directly involved in the robbery and votes to convict him. However, the jury believes there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to prove Ben's direct involvement, so they vote to acquit Ben. This would be a split verdict because, in the same trial, one defendant (Alex) was found guilty, and the other (Ben) was found not guilty.

• Example 2: Multiple Charges Against One Defendant

  Consider a scenario where a person named Clara is on trial for two separate charges stemming from the same incident: aggravated assault and possession of an illegal firearm. The jury reviews the evidence and determines that there is sufficient proof to convict Clara of possessing the illegal firearm. However, they find the evidence for aggravated assault to be inconclusive and decide to acquit her on that charge. This is a split verdict because Clara was found guilty of one charge but not guilty of another within the same trial.

• Example 3: Multiple Counts of the Same Charge

  Suppose a financial advisor, David, is accused of five separate counts of wire fraud, each related to a different client transaction. During the trial, the prosecution presents evidence for all five counts. The jury deliberates and finds overwhelming evidence to convict David on three of the wire fraud counts. For the remaining two counts, however, they determine the evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit him. This constitutes a split verdict because David was convicted on some counts of wire fraud but acquitted on others, all within the same trial for the same type of offense.