Should Verdicts Be Unanimous or Substantial Majority?

Student’s name

Institutional affiliation

Should Verdicts Be Unanimous or Substantial Majority?

A unanimous jury verdict is a verdict where all jurors reach a unanimous verdict meaning that they have to all agree on whether the defendant is not guilty or guilty. The United States has two court systems, namely state and federal courts. Each system caters to different case types. In the federal court system, the jury is required to reach a unanimous verdict regardless of whether the trial is civil or criminal. On the other hand, a substantial majority verdict is a verdict that is decided upon by 11 jurors in a jury of 12 people when the verdict is being returned or ten jurors in 11 people at the time of returning a verdict. This essay discusses whether all verdicts are required to be unanimous or only a substantial majority including the advantages and disadvantages.

While the jury verdicts for federal courts are required to be unanimous, the verdicts made by state courts are not required to be anonymous. In state courts, whether the jury will be unanimous depends on the type of trial and state. Almost all states have made it mandatory for juries to settle on a unanimous verdict in all criminal trials (Kurland, 2021). In civil trials, nearly one-third of states need a substantial majority for a verdict. Some states need a majority of the money at issue during the trial goes below a certain amounts, and a unanimous verdict during all times.

Unanimous jury verdicts are beneficial as they ensure that defendants do not get convicted until the prosecution proves to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors seeking to convict criminal defendants are tasked with proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The way to ensure the standards is met is by making it a requirement for the jury to get to a conclusion. Notably, unanimity is now a requirement for jury verdicts in federal courts and in every state. The unanimous verdict requirement means the decision as to whether the crime committed is left for more than one juror (Bouton, Llorente-Saguer, & Malherbe, 2018). This means that the jurors must substantially discuss and agree to the principal factual elements that underlie a specific offense or they make disagree on tangential pieces of evidence. For instance, during prosecution for a case of theft, the prosecutor’s case can include evidence of what the accused intended to do with the stolen items. The jury does not need to accept that the intentions had been planned. It is enough for them to agree that the accused planned on temporarily depriving the owner of stolen goods among other things. For a verdict to be declared unanimous, all jurors are required to arrive at a final decision which is unambiguous and clear. The court judge at the trials is tasked with ensuring a verdict fulfills this requirement. This is done by polling all jurors in open court, where the judge asks the juror if that is their final verdict. It is not uncommon to hear a juror respond no at the point at which the judge tends jurors back to the chambers for more deliberations.

It is worth noting that until recently, all jury members were required to agree in a trial before they find a person not guilty or guilty. However, this has now changed with people being found not guilty or guilty by a majority verdict in state offenses. The majority juries have advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, majority juries tend to reduce the number of hung juries and have less problems caused by rogue jurors (Hedden, 2017). Additionally, majority jury verdicts are beneficial as there are less chances of intimidation and compromised verdicts are avoided. The majority jury verdicts are advantageous as they lead to better jury deliberation and prevent the conviction of innocent persons. On the downside, majority rules cause disagreements if the jury is not unreasonable.

In closing, while some verdicts are required to be unanimous others are decided by a substantial majority verdict. Unanimous verdicts are where jurors agree beyond reasonable doubt about the defendant being guilty or not guilty. Unanimous verdicts help avoid the conviction of an innocent person. A majority verdict is where eleven jurors decide a verdict while the jury has twelve people. The laws about unanimous jury verdicts tend to be confusing when the need to consult with a qualified attorney.

References

Bouton, L., Llorente-Saguer, A., & Malherbe, F. (2018). Get rid of unanimity rule: the superiority of majority rules with veto power. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 107-149.

Hedden, B. R. (2017). Should juries deliberate?. Social Epistemology, 31(4), 368-386.

Kurland, K. (2021). With Unanimity and Justice for All: The Case for Retroactive Application of the Unanimous Jury Verdict Requirement. Nw. JL & Soc. Pol’y, 17, 49.