Legal Definitions - wrong verdict

A wrong verdict refers to a jury's decision that is legally flawed because it disregards or misapplies the specific legal instructions provided by the judge, or is not supported by the evidence when viewed through the lens of those legal principles. It is not simply a verdict that someone disagrees with, but one that is legally unsustainable and may be overturned by a higher court or by the trial judge.

• Example 1: Disregarding Contract Law Principles

  A small business owner sues a client for breach of contract, claiming the client failed to pay for services rendered. The judge instructs the jury that for a contract to be legally binding, there must be a clear "offer" and "acceptance" of specific terms. During the trial, it becomes evident that the parties never finalized key terms, and no formal agreement was ever reached. Despite this, the jury, perhaps feeling the business owner deserved payment for the effort expended, finds in favor of the business owner and awards damages.

  This would be considered a wrong verdict because the jury disregarded the judge's explicit instructions on the fundamental legal requirements for forming a valid contract. Their decision to enforce an agreement that legally never existed goes against established contract law principles.

• Example 2: Misapplying Elements of a Crime

  In a criminal trial for burglary, the judge instructs the jury that to convict the defendant, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered a building *with the intent to commit a felony or theft inside*. The defense presents strong evidence that the defendant entered the building solely to escape a sudden, severe storm and had no intention of stealing anything. The jury, however, convicts the defendant, perhaps believing that any unauthorized entry is inherently wrong, regardless of intent.

  This verdict would be a wrong verdict because the jury failed to apply the specific legal element of "intent to commit a felony or theft" as instructed by the judge. Their decision to convict, despite evidence negating this crucial legal requirement, makes the verdict legally unsustainable.

• Example 3: Ignoring Causation in a Personal Injury Case

  A plaintiff sues a driver for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The judge instructs the jury that for the driver to be held liable, the plaintiff must prove that the driver's negligence was the *direct cause* of their injuries. During the trial, medical experts testify that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident, or were caused by a subsequent event. The jury, feeling sympathy for the plaintiff's overall condition, finds the defendant driver liable and awards significant damages.

  This constitutes a wrong verdict because the jury disregarded the judge's instruction on causation, a fundamental legal requirement for proving liability in a personal injury claim. Their decision was not supported by the evidence as interpreted through the legal standard of direct causation.