Hubbry Logo
Hung juryHung juryMain
Open search
Hung jury
Community hub
Hung jury
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hung jury
Hung jury
Hung jury
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

This situation can occur only in common law legal systems. Civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is immediately acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a singular, solemn vote.

Australia

[edit]

Majority (or supermajority verdicts) are in force in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth courts require unanimous verdicts in criminal (but not civil) trials.[1]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, the jury must reach a unanimous decision on criminal cases. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, a hung jury is declared. A new panel of jurors will be selected for the retrial. Each jury in criminal courts contains 12 jurors. In civil cases, only six people are necessary for a jury, and if there is only one dissenter (i.e. a 5–1 vote), the dissenter can be ignored with the majority opinion becoming the final verdict.[2]

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand, the jury must try to reach a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict after a reasonable time given the nature and complexity of the case (but not less than four hours), then the court may accept a majority verdict. In criminal cases, an all-but-one vote is needed (i.e. 11–1 with a full jury); in civil cases, a three-quarters (75%) vote is needed (i.e. 9–3 with a full jury).[3]

If the jury fails to reach either a unanimous or majority verdict after a reasonable time, the presiding judge may declare a hung jury.[4] Ordinarily there will be a new trial.[5] If the retrial also results in a hung jury, the case must be referred to the Solicitor-General, who will generally issue a stay of proceedings unless there are compelling reasons to proceed with a third trial.[6]

United Kingdom

[edit]

England and Wales

[edit]

Majority verdicts have been allowed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Before this all criminal convictions required a unanimous verdict. At least 10 votes out of 12 is needed for a valid majority verdict. If fewer jurors remain, majorities allowed are 11–0, 10–1, 10–0, 9–1 and 9–0. Failure to reach this may lead to a retrial (R v. Bertrand, 1807).[7]

Initially, the jury will be directed to try to reach a unanimous verdict. If they fail to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge may later give directions that a majority verdict will be acceptable, although the jury should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict if possible. The judge may not give these directions before at least two hours[8] of deliberation, however in practice it is often given after much longer than two hours.[7]

When the jury is called to deliver a verdict after majority directions have been given, a careful protocol of questions is followed: only in the event of a guilty verdict is it asked whether all jurors were agreed on that verdict, to prevent any acquittal from being tainted by it being disclosed that any jurors dissented. The protocol is followed separately for each charge.[9] Majority verdicts are treated the same as unanimous ones, for example they are not taken as a mitigating factor during sentencing.[7]

Scotland

[edit]

It is not possible to have a hung jury in Scotland in criminal cases. Juries consist of 15, and verdicts are decided by simple majority (eight) of the initial membership. If jurors drop out because of illness or another reason, the trial can continue with a minimum of 12 jurors, but the support of eight jurors is needed for a guilty verdict; anything less is treated as an acquittal.[10]

In civil cases there is a jury of 12, with a minimum of 10 needed to continue the trial. It is possible to have a hung jury if there is a tied vote after three hours' deliberation.[11]

United States

[edit]

Majority verdicts are not allowed in civilian criminal cases in the United States. A hung jury results in a mistrial. The case may be retried (United States v. Perez, 1824).

Louisiana, which was historically influenced by the French civil law system, and Oregon used to allow 10–2 majority verdicts. In the 2020 case Ramos v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury must vote unanimously to convict in any criminal offense that requires a jury trial.

Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last-ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, "The verdict must be unanimous. ... If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed. ... If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed. ... If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. A hung jury does not imply either the defendant's guilt or innocence. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree."[12]

In jurisdictions giving those involved in the case a choice of jury size (such as between a six-person and twelve-person jury), defense counsel in both civil and criminal cases frequently opt for the larger number of jurors. A common axiom in criminal cases is that "it takes only one to hang," referring to the fact that in some cases, a single juror can defeat the required unanimity.[citation needed]

One proposal for dealing with the difficulties associated with hung juries has been to introduce supermajority verdicts to allow juries to convict defendants without unanimous agreements amongst the jurors, but this would require amending the U.S. Constitution. For example, a 12-member jury that would otherwise be deadlocked at 11 for conviction and one against might be recorded as a guilty verdict. The rationale for majority verdicts usually includes arguments related to so-called 'rogue jurors', who unreasonably impede the course of justice. Opponents of majority verdicts argue that it undermines public confidence in criminal justice systems and results in a higher number of individuals to be convicted of crimes they did not commit.[citation needed]

In United States military justice, there are no hung juries. If the threshold for a conviction is not met, the defendant is acquitted. Article 52 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) specifies the minimum number of court-martial panel members required to return a verdict of guilty. In a capital case, a unanimous vote of all panel members is required to convict on a capital charge.

In all other cases, only a three-fourths vote is required to convict. Additionally, the Manual for Courts-Martial requires only a judge and a specified number of panel members in all non-capital cases (eight for a general court-martial or three for a special court-martial; no panel is seated for a summary court-martial). In capital cases, a panel of 12 members is required.[citation needed]

Hung jury in capital sentencing

[edit]

Of the 27 U.S. states with the death penalty, 25 require the sentence to be decided by a jury.

Two states do not use juries in death penalty cases:

  • In Nebraska the sentence is decided by a three-judge panel, which must unanimously agree on death, and the defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment if one of the judges is opposed.[13]
  • Montana is the only state where the trial judge decides the sentence alone.[14]

Two states do not require a unanimous jury decision:

  • In Alabama, at least 10 jurors must concur, and a retrial happens if the jury deadlocks.[15]
  • In Florida, at least 8 jurors (two-thirds) must concur, and the prosecution can pursue a retrial if the jury deadlocks.[16]

In all states in which the jury is involved, only death-qualified prospective jurors can be selected in such a jury, to exclude both people who will always vote for the death sentence and those who are categorically opposed to it. However, the states differ on what happens if the penalty phase results in a hung jury:[17][18]

  • In five states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Kentucky and Nevada), a retrial of the penalty phase will be conducted before a different jury (the common-law rule for mistrial).[19]
  • In two states (Indiana and Missouri), the judge will decide the sentence.
  • In the remaining states, a hung jury results in a life sentence, even if only one juror opposed death. Federal law also provides that outcome.[20]

The first outcome is referred as the "true unanimity" rule, while the third has been criticized as the "single-juror veto" rule.[21]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hung jury

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A hung jury, also known as a deadlocked jury, occurs when the members of a trial cannot agree upon a after extended , failing to meet the required voting margin, which is typically for criminal convictions in systems. This outcome, rooted in English traditions emphasizing collective yet consensual judgment, results in a mistrial declaration by the , neither acquitting nor convicting the and thereby permitting retrial without implicating protections. In the United States, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial , with the affirming in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that unanimous verdicts are constitutionally required for serious state and federal criminal offenses, rejecting non-unanimous holdovers from historical practices in certain jurisdictions. Hung juries, though infrequent—occurring in roughly 3 to 6 percent of cases based on empirical studies—highlight tensions between efficient judicial resolution and the preservation of minority juror dissent, often prompting prosecutorial decisions to retry high-profile matters while underscoring the jury's role in checking potential overreach by the state.

Definition and Principles

A hung jury, also termed a deadlocked jury, refers to a panel of jurors unable to arrive at a meeting the prescribed voting threshold after prolonged . In jurisdictions adhering to traditions, this condition arises principally in criminal proceedings where among all jurors is mandated for or . Failure to secure such agreement, despite judicial encouragement to deliberate further, prompts the trial judge to declare a mistrial, as the jury cannot fulfill its fact-finding obligation. The requirement for stems from foundational principles in Anglo-American , ensuring that no individual juror's dissent undermines the collective judgment unless reconciled through discussion. Under U.S. federal law, for instance, Federal Rule of 31 mandates a unanimous in trials, rendering any deadlock a hung jury irrespective of the vote split, such as 11-1 or 6-6. This standard, upheld by the in Ramos v. (2020), now applies to all states in serious criminal cases, rejecting non-unanimous allowances previously permitted in and . Civil cases may permit majority verdicts in some jurisdictions, but a hung jury still denotes inability to meet the specific threshold, often leading to retrial. Legally, the declaration of a hung jury hinges on the foreperson's report to the of irreconcilable , following reasonable efforts to resolve differences, without coercing minority views. Courts assess deadlock objectively, avoiding premature mistrials that could prejudice retrials under principles, which do not bar reprosecution after a genuine hung jury. This definition underscores the jury's role as an independent safeguard against erroneous convictions, prioritizing deliberative integrity over expediency.

Requirement for Unanimity

In jurisdictions, the requirement for mandates that all members of a agree on a for it to be considered valid, preventing a decision based on alone. This principle ensures that convictions or acquittals reflect collective certainty among jurors, who are presumed to have deliberated thoroughly to resolve any reasonable doubts. Failure to achieve such consensus results in a hung jury, necessitating procedural remedies like mistrials. The historical foundation of jury unanimity traces to medieval English , where majority verdicts were accepted as late as 1346, but by 1367, courts required full agreement among jurors to render a binding decision. This shift solidified over time, becoming a entrenched precept by the late and enduring into the as a safeguard for the accused, akin to the affirmation needed from witnesses under early . promoted extended deliberation, minimizing erroneous outcomes by compelling jurors to address dissenting views rather than overriding them. Proponents argue that unanimity enhances verdict reliability by filtering out weak cases, as persistent disagreement signals insufficient evidence, thereby protecting against wrongful convictions. Empirical analyses, however, indicate that non-unanimous systems may yield higher conviction rates without proportionally increasing accuracy, though common law adherence prioritizes consensus as a bulwark against hasty or biased judgments. In the United States, this requirement is constitutionally enshrined in the Sixth Amendment for federal trials and extended to states via the Fourteenth Amendment, as affirmed in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), which struck down non-unanimous verdicts for serious offenses to align with historical practices. While some jurisdictions have experimented with majority verdicts to avert deadlocks—such as the UK's allowance since the Criminal Justice Act 1967—the core common law ideal remains full agreement to uphold trial integrity.

Historical Development

Origins in English Common Law

The system, central to the concept of a hung jury, emerged in English during the 12th century under King Henry II's legal reforms, particularly through the Assizes of Clarendon (1166) and (1176), which mandated local juries to accuse suspects and determine facts in royal courts. These early juries, drawn from freemen with knowledge of the community, initially served dual roles as accusers and deciders, evolving from Frankish practices but adapted to emphasize communal over ordeal or combat trials. Disagreement among jurors was rare in this phase, as panels often relied on pre-existing consensus from local knowledge rather than extended deliberation, and the system's emphasis on swift royal justice discouraged deadlock. By the mid-14th century, the requirement for unanimous solidified, marking a pivotal development that made hung juries a structural possibility. As late as 1346, some courts accepted majority , but by 1367, precedents demanded full for a binding decision, viewing the as a singular entity whose divided opinion invalidated its function. This rule stemmed from the 's perceived role as the unified "voice of the vicinage," where partial agreement undermined the trial's legitimacy and risked attaint proceedings—civil actions to reverse false by punishing jurors for . Dissenting jurors could face fines or imprisonment under attaint if a was later overturned, incentivizing consensus but also pressuring holdouts. To avert hung juries, judges employed coercive measures, sequestering panels without food, water, heat, or bedding until agreement, a practice rooted in medieval customs prioritizing verdict over juror welfare. This approach treated disagreement as temporary obstinacy rather than an endpoint, with records showing juries held for days under duress. A prominent illustration occurred in Bushel's Case (1670), where jurors acquitting Quakers William Penn and William Mead despite judicial direction were confined for nearly three days without sustenance; Chief Justice John Vaughan's subsequent habeas corpus ruling (124 Eng. Rep. 1006) curtailed such excesses by protecting jury independence from post-verdict punishment, though pre-verdict coercion persisted. These mechanisms reflected common law's causal emphasis on enforceable unanimity to maintain trial efficacy, with unresolved deadlocks occasionally resulting in mistrials and retrials, unbarred by double jeopardy under the era's implied acquittal doctrine.

Evolution in the United States

The practice of declaring a hung jury originated from English traditions adopted during the colonial period and formalized in the early republic, where unanimous jury verdicts were required for criminal convictions to reflect the collective judgment of the community. Federal courts adhered to this unanimity standard throughout the , mirroring English custom that had solidified by the , with judges exercising broad discretion to determine when deliberations had sufficiently deadlocked to warrant a mistrial declaration. A landmark clarification came in United States v. Perez (1824), where the ruled that discharging a genuinely deadlocked constitutes a "manifest necessity," permitting retrial without violating the of the Fifth Amendment, as the absence of a verdict leaves jeopardy unterminated. This decision entrenched the hung jury as a procedural mechanism for mistrials rather than a bar to further prosecution, influencing subsequent cases like Arizona v. Washington (1978), which affirmed judges' discretion in assessing the necessity of mistrial declarations while cautioning against prosecutorial overreach. By the mid-20th century, concerns over the costs and delays from hung —estimated to affect 3-6% of trials in some jurisdictions—prompted reforms, including reductions in from 12 to 6 in many states to lower deadlock probabilities, as smaller groups exhibit less variance in opinion formation. Some states, notably and , adopted non- verdict rules (allowing convictions by 10-2 or 9-3 margins) to mitigate hung juries, rooted partly in post-Reconstruction efforts to diminish Black jurors' influence. The in Apodaca v. (1972) upheld these state practices, holding that the Sixth Amendment's requirement applied only to federal trials, not states. This divergence ended with (2020), where the Court overruled , mandating unanimous verdicts for serious state criminal offenses to ensure historical fidelity to common-law jury functions and equal protection against discriminatory origins of non-unanimous rules. The ruling standardized the hung jury's role nationwide for non-petty crimes, potentially elevating mistrial rates in states previously reliant on majority verdicts, while reinforcing causal links between unanimity and robust fact-finding by requiring full consensus to override individual juror doubts.

Influence on Commonwealth Jurisdictions

In jurisdictions, the concept of a hung jury originated from the English tradition of requiring unanimous verdicts, which was exported to colonies such as , , and during the , necessitating mechanisms for handling deadlocks through mistrials and potential retrials. This inheritance meant that early jury systems in these territories mirrored England's emphasis on consensus, where failure to achieve it after deliberation—often after judicial encouragement to continue—resulted in the jury being discharged without , as seen in foundational statutes like 's colonial Acts of the 1830s and 1890s. Empirical data from the period indicate low but persistent hung jury rates, prompting procedural adaptations like extended deliberation periods, with mandating at least three hours before declaring a hung jury. The persistence of hung juries under unanimity rules influenced reforms aimed at efficiency, particularly following the UK's Criminal Justice Act 1967, which permitted majority verdicts (10-2 in 12-person juries) to avert deadlocks after initial deliberations. adopted similar measures variably by state: implemented majority verdicts in 1971 for non-capital trials, requiring 11-1 or 10-2 agreement after two hours of deadlock, while considered but deferred comprehensive adoption until inquiries in the 2000s highlighted hung rates of 3-5% in superior courts. These changes reduced retrial burdens, with studies showing majority systems correlating to hung jury frequencies below 2% in adopting jurisdictions, though critics argued they diluted the principle's safeguard against minority . Canada and New Zealand initially retained strict unanimity, reflecting a conservative adherence to common law ideals, with Canada's Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) prohibiting majority verdicts and treating hung juries as mistrials eligible for retrial absent double jeopardy bars. New Zealand followed suit until 2022, when amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act enabled 11-1 or 10-2 verdicts after four hours of disagreement, explicitly to address hung jury inefficiencies documented at 4-6% in high-profile cases, aligning it with Australia and the UK. In contrast, some Commonwealth nations diverged further: India abolished general jury trials post-1970s due to perceived unreliability, eliminating hung juries altogether, while smaller jurisdictions like Jersey reformed in 2018 to preclude automatic acquittals on first hung verdicts, allowing prosecutor discretion for retrials. These evolutions underscore the hung jury's role as a catalyst for balancing verdict reliability with judicial expediency, though unanimity persists where evidentiary safeguards like corroboration historically mitigated deadlock risks.

Procedures by Jurisdiction

United States

In the , a hung jury arises when jurors fail to achieve the unanimous required for or in criminal trials, typically after extended s. This deadlock prompts judicial intervention to assess whether further deliberation is feasible or a mistrial should be declared. Federal courts mandate unanimity for all convictions under the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the . Following the 2020 decision in , which invalidated non-unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses as violations of the Sixth Amendment's incorporation via the Fourteenth, all states now require unanimous verdicts for convictions, though some permit non-unanimous outcomes in minor cases. Upon receiving a jury note indicating impasse, the trial judge may poll the jurors individually to confirm the deadlock without revealing vote splits, preserving secrecy and avoiding coercion. If deliberations stall, judges often deliver an Allen charge—a supplemental instruction originating from Allen v. (1896)—urging holdout jurors to reconsider their positions in light of the majority view while emphasizing that no juror should surrender conscientious convictions. This charge, permissible in federal and most state courts, aims to foster consensus without undue pressure; however, its coercive potential has drawn criticism, leading some jurisdictions like to adopt modified, less directive versions post-Jenkins v. (1967), which barred instructions implying jurors must yield personal beliefs. Repeated Allen charges are disfavored to prevent harassment of minority jurors. If the remains deadlocked despite such measures, the exercises to a mistrial, a decision upheld if rooted in "manifest necessity," such as genuine evidenced by the foreperson's report or polling. mistrials do not trigger protections under the Fifth Amendment, allowing prosecutors to retry the case absent or bad-faith maneuvers. In federal practice, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26(c), the may also accept partial verdicts on undecided counts if unanimity exists there, isolating the hung elements. State procedures mirror this, with retrial rates high—often exceeding 70% in serious felonies—though resource constraints may lead to dismissals in lower-stakes cases. Judges must document the basis for mistrial to withstand appellate review, ensuring the declaration reflects objective deadlock rather than expediency.

United Kingdom

In , juries in criminal trials at the Crown Court consist of 12 members and are not required to deliver unanimous verdicts in most cases. Under section 17 of the Juries Act 1974, after a minimum of two hours' , a is permissible, requiring agreement from at least 10 jurors (a 10-2 or 11-1 ) for a of 12, or nine for a of 10 if two members have been discharged. For smaller juries of eight in certain matters, seven must agree. The foreman must disclose the number of dissenters in open court for guilty verdicts, ensuring transparency. This system, introduced via the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and consolidated in 1974, aims to resolve deadlocks without necessitating full , thereby reducing the incidence of hung juries compared to jurisdictions requiring consensus. If the indicates it cannot reach even a after further reasonable deliberation—determined by the based on case complexity—the is discharged, resulting in a hung jury. The prosecution, guided by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), then applies the Full Code Test from the Code for Crown Prosecutors to decide on a retrial: first, assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction based on ; second, evaluating , considering factors such as offence gravity, victim impact, and prior outcomes. Retrials are common after a single hung , particularly for serious offences, but a third (following two failures) requires approval from a Chief Crown Prosecutor and occurs only in exceptional circumstances, such as murders with strong evidence, as affirmed in cases like R v Bell EWCA Crim 3. Decisions are ideally made before discharge, with adjournments possible up to seven days for those in custody or 14 days on . A hung does not invoke protections under the , allowing retrial unless an has occurred. In , criminal juries comprise 15 members, and verdicts require only a simple majority of eight for guilty (with or not guilty possible otherwise), eliminating the need for or qualified majorities akin to . Hung juries are rare and effectively precluded by this , as no full consensus is mandated; however, if no emerges after extended , the may discharge the jury, prompting the Office and Service to assess retrial viability based on evidential sufficiency and public interest. Northern Ireland follows procedures similar to , with 12-person juries permitting majority verdicts (10-2) after initial deliberation, under the Juries Order (Northern Ireland) 1975. Upon a hung jury declaration, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland evaluates retrial prospects using criteria mirroring the CPS Full Code Test, prioritizing serious cases while weighing resource demands and defendant rights. Retrials proceed if evidential and thresholds are met, without automatic double jeopardy barring unless acquitted.

Other Common Law Countries

In , criminal jury trials require unanimous verdicts, and a failure to achieve consensus after reasonable results in a hung , typically leading to a mistrial declaration by the , with the option for to pursue a retrial. Judges may encourage further but cannot coerce agreement, and empirical data indicate hung juries occur infrequently, often prompting retrials unless prosecutorial discretion opts against them. Civil jury trials, less common, also demand or near-unanimity depending on provincial rules, with similar mistrial outcomes. Australian procedures vary by state and territory but generally permit majority s to mitigate hung juries, diverging from strict unanimity in favor of pragmatic resolution. In , for instance, after initial deliberation, a supported by 11 of 12 jurors suffices, with a hung jury declared only if even this threshold fails following judicial encouragement. Similar rules apply in Victoria and , where majority s (typically 10-2 or 11-1) are allowable after four to six hours of deliberation, reducing deadlock rates but raising concerns over minority juror exclusion. Recent reforms, such as in the Australian Capital Territory effective 2024, lowered the threshold to 11-1 explicitly to minimize retrials, though critics argue this risks hasty decisions. Upon a hung jury, courts may discharge the panel and order a , subject to limits after multiple failures. New Zealand law mandates initial pursuit of a but allows (at least 10-2) after four hours of if proves unattainable, as codified in the Juries Act 1981. A arises if neither nor consensus is reached despite extended room time and judicial polling, prompting discharge and potential retrial. Prosecutorial guidelines from the Office typically limit retrials to one or two attempts, with the Solicitor-General directing a after two hung juries to avoid undue burden on defendants and resources, barring exceptional circumstances like strong . This approach balances finality with fairness, though data on frequency remains sparse due to infrequent trials overall. In other Commonwealth jurisdictions like , jury trials have been largely abolished since following high-profile miscarriages, reverting to judge-alone determinations and rendering hung juries obsolete in practice. retains limited jury use in superior courts but emphasizes unanimous or verdicts, with hung outcomes leading to bench trials or retrials under constitutional safeguards against oppression. These variations reflect adaptations to local contexts, prioritizing efficiency over pure where empirical evidence shows deadlocks strain judicial systems.

Consequences of a Hung Jury

Declaration of Mistrial

A declaration of mistrial occurs when a trial judge determines that a hung jury—unable to reach the required unanimous after reasonable deliberations—prevents continuation of the proceedings. In such cases, the jury typically communicates its deadlock to the court, prompting the judge to assess whether further instructions, such as an Allen charge encouraging minority jurors to reconsider without compromising their views, might resolve the impasse. If efforts fail and the deadlock persists, the judge has discretion grounded in "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial, thereby aborting the trial without a . This declaration is mandatory in jurisdictions requiring , as a hung jury inherently frustrates the 's purpose. For instance, under U.S. federal and state practices, courts must terminate proceedings upon confirmed inability to agree, avoiding indefinite . The ruling nullifies all proceedings from the 's start, discharging the jury and releasing the defendant from custody if no other holds apply, though conditions may persist pending prosecutorial decisions. Legally, a mistrial from a hung jury does not invoke protections under the Fifth Amendment, as the has long recognized it as a classic case of manifest necessity permitting retrial. This stems from that societal interest in fair outweighs the burden of restarting when no is possible, distinguishing it from mistrials due to . Empirical reviews confirm hung jury mistrials comprise a significant portion of terminations, with retrials often yielding convictions in over half of cases, underscoring the declaration's role in preserving without presuming .

Retrial Processes

In jurisdictions, retrial following a mistrial due to a hung jury proceeds under , with the state retaining the authority to recharge and retry the on the same counts, as the absence of a does not implicate protections. The process begins after the trial judge discharges the deadlocked and formally declares a mistrial, typically requiring documented efforts to encourage further deliberation, such as Allen charges , before acceptance of the impasse. A date is then set, often within months, involving fresh to ensure impartiality, with peremptory challenges and processes mirroring the original trial. In the , federal and state prosecutors decide whether to retry, frequently opting to do so for felonies like or drug trafficking where evidence remains strong, though cases may be dropped to conserve resources. The retrial uses the same unless amended or dismissed, and evidentiary rules prohibit referencing the prior hung jury to avoid , with courts occasionally invoking inherent supervisory powers to bar excessive retrials—such as after three successive deadlocks—if demands finality, as in rare federal precedents like United States v. Schwartz (1983). Witness testimony is reperformed, subject to availability and potential fading memories, while must be preserved under chain-of-custody protocols to maintain admissibility. In the , the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) evaluates retrial viability under guidelines emphasizing the likelihood of conviction and , applying a toward retrying serious indictable offenses unless disproportionate costs or weak prevail. The retrial, if pursued, features a new of 12, with verdicts permissible (at least 10-2) after extended deliberations, and the judge may direct acquittal pre-retrial if exists. Disclosure obligations intensify, requiring updated review, and repeated failures may prompt CPS discontinuation, as seen in policy directives post-2010s reforms to curb inefficient prosecutions. Across other systems, such as and , analogous procedures apply, with attorneys general or equivalents holding retry authority, tempered by evidentiary thresholds and judicial oversight to prevent , though empirical patterns show retrials succeeding at rates around 60-70% in refortified cases due to holdout juror exclusion via improved . Defendants remain presumed innocent during intervals, eligible for unless flight risk or danger justifies detention, and plea negotiations may accelerate post-mistrial to avert full retrial burdens.

Double Jeopardy Implications

A hung jury, leading to a declaration of mistrial, generally does not trigger double jeopardy protections to preclude retrial in jurisdictions, as the termination of proceedings stems from the jury's inability to reach a rather than a resolution in the defendant's favor. In the , the Fifth Amendment's prohibits retrying an individual for the same offense after or , but jeopardy attaches only upon the empanelment and swearing-in of the , without necessarily barring subsequent trials in cases of genuine deadlock. The U.S. established this principle in United States v. Perez (1824), ruling that discharging a hung jury constitutes no bar to further prosecution, since no —guilty or not guilty—has been rendered, thereby preserving the state's interest in justice without undue prejudice to the accused. This exception operates under the "manifest necessity" doctrine, articulated in Perez, which permits a trial judge to declare a mistrial and allow retrial when circumstances demand it to avoid a defective or futile proceeding, with a hung jury exemplifying such necessity due to the impasse preventing any outcome. Subsequent rulings, including Arizona v. Washington (1978), have affirmed that while the doctrine requires careful judicial discretion—evaluating factors like the jury's deliberations and potential for coercion—a true deadlock justifies discharge without violating double jeopardy, as retrial does not equate to multiple punishments or vexatious prosecutions. In Richardson v. United States (1984), the Court explicitly held that neither a jury's failure to agree nor a resulting mistrial terminates the original jeopardy, enabling reprosecution even after partial deliberations on multiple counts. Exceptions arise if the mistrial lacks manifest necessity, such as premature discharge without exhausting reasonable efforts to resolve the deadlock (e.g., via supplemental instructions like an Allen charge), potentially barring retrial under heightened scrutiny to protect the defendant's right to a single tribunal's resolution. Empirical data from federal cases indicate that hung juries routinely lead to retrials without successful challenges, with conviction rates in second trials often comparable or higher due to refined prosecutorial strategies, underscoring the doctrine's practical tolerance for repetition absent abuse. In other systems, such as the prior to reforms, similar principles applied, though the introduced limited exceptions allowing retrials after acquittals in serious cases, without altering the hung jury baseline. This framework balances finality interests against the risk of letting unresolved disputes persist, rooted in the causal reality that a non-verdict leaves the offense unadjudicated.

Frequency, Causes, and Empirical Data

Statistical Rates of Hung Juries

In the United States, hung jury rates in federal criminal trials averaged 2.5% across the 14 federal circuits from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, with lower variation than in state courts and elevated incidences in urban circuits. State felony trials showed a higher average of 6.2% during 1980–1998, though rates varied widely by jurisdiction, from 0.1% in , to 14.8% in . Urban areas consistently reported disproportionate rates, such as 11% in the District of Columbia Superior Court in 1996 and over 15% in select jurisdictions in 1994.
Jurisdiction TypeTime PeriodAverage Hung Jury RateRange (Select Examples)Source
U.S. Federal CourtsLate 1980s–Early 2000s2.5%Uniform across circuits; higher in urban areas
Trials1980–19986.2%0.1% (Pierce County, WA) to 14.8% ( County, CA)
In the , hung juries occur infrequently in proceedings, with rates below 1% for trials based on verdict data from 2010–2022. Administrative records indicate 157 hung juries from January to September 2017, predominantly in sexual offenses (75 cases) and violence against the person (28 cases), though total volumes yield an estimated overall rate under 1% given approximately 30,000–40,000 annual trials in that era. Specialized contexts, such as trials under of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, showed a 2.3% rate compared to 0.7% without such measures. Empirical data from other common law jurisdictions like and remains limited, with no comprehensive national rates identified in peer-reviewed or official studies; available research focuses more on mock juries or specific reforms rather than aggregate frequencies. Across U.S. jurisdictions examined in National Center for State Courts analyses, overall hung jury occurrences approximate 5% of trials, underscoring their role as a minority but persistent outcome in unanimous systems. These figures derive primarily from court administrative data and observer studies, with methodological challenges including inconsistent reporting of partial versus full deadlocks.

Common Factors Leading to Deadlocks

Weak is the most frequent primary cause of jury deadlocks, identified in empirical analysis of 46 hung jury cases across jurisdictions like and , where jurors exhibited substantial disagreement on the prosecution's case strength. Evidentiary , particularly disputes over the interpretation or reliability of witness testimony and forensic data, heightens deadlock , with studies showing higher hang rates in cases rated as highly ambiguous by post-trial surveys. Multiple defendants or numerous counts in a single amplify divisions, as jurors struggle to achieve consensus across varied charges, contributing to deadlocks in 27% of multi-defendant cases versus 12% in single-defendant ones. Juror attitudes toward the fairness or applicability of the law represent a secondary but notable factor, with holdout jurors citing concerns over mandatory minimum sentences or perceived inequities in legal standards, evident in approximately 5 cases from in-depth reviews in specific sites. Deliberation dynamics, including early voting (often within the first 10 minutes) that polarizes opinions and the influence of dominant jurors who resist compromise, perpetuate stalemates in over 25% of examined deadlocked deliberations. Although case complexity—such as voluminous or technical details—is frequently hypothesized as a driver, empirical from juror, , and attorney assessments indicate it rarely serves as the primary cause, instead acting peripherally in cases already weakened by evidential shortcomings. Serious offenses like are disproportionately represented among hung juries (24% of deadlocks versus 13% of the overall sample), likely due to heightened emotional stakes and disagreements among jurors. Juror nullification, or deliberate disregard of in favor of equity, appears uncommon based on post-deliberation interviews, with most deadlocks tracing to genuine interpretive differences rather than intentional defiance.

Debates, Criticisms, and Reforms

Arguments Favoring Unanimous Verdicts

Proponents argue that unanimous verdicts elevate the quality of jury decision-making by necessitating consensus among all jurors, thereby aligning with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal trials, as a single juror's unresolved doubt precludes conviction and safeguards against erroneous guilty verdicts. This requirement compels jurors to address and resolve any dissenting perspectives, preventing the marginalization of minority viewpoints that might identify overlooked exculpatory evidence or flaws in the prosecution's case. Empirical research indicates that juries operating under rules engage in more extensive s compared to those permitting s, with unanimous groups typically spending additional time scrutinizing and discussing divergent opinions, which fosters deeper analysis and reduces the risk of premature conclusions. Studies of mock juries and real-world simulations show that non-unanimous systems lead to shorter, less robust discussions where holdout jurors' arguments are often discounted, potentially amplifying biases or incomplete fact-finding. For instance, analyses of dynamics reveal that promotes "verdict-driven" processes, where jurors prioritize reconciliation over compromise, enhancing overall reliability. Furthermore, the mechanism of ensures that minority jurors—whose input may counter or introduce critical scrutiny—cannot be overridden by numerical majorities, a dynamic supported by findings that diverse viewpoints in unanimous settings contribute to more accurate outcomes by mitigating errors from unchallenged assumptions. Legal scholars emphasize that this structure upholds the jury's role as a bulwark against state overreach, as historical traditions viewed full agreement as essential for legitimizing deprivations of , a reinforced in modern constitutional interpretations requiring unanimity for serious offenses. Although non-unanimous rules may expedite resolutions and avert some hung juries, advocates contend that the trade-off undermines epistemic integrity, with data from comparative jury experiments suggesting higher conviction error rates in majority systems due to insufficient persuasion of skeptics.

Proposals for Majority or Supermajority Verdicts

Proposals to adopt majority or verdicts in jurisdictions requiring seek to mitigate hung juries by permitting convictions or acquittals upon agreement by a substantial portion of jurors, typically 9 or 10 out of 12, thereby enhancing and reducing retrial costs. Such reforms draw on empirical observations from non-unanimous systems, where hung jury rates drop to around 3-5 percent compared to higher rates under , as documented in mid-20th-century studies of American jurisdictions allowing non-unanimous rules. Advocates argue that a single dissenting juror can unreasonably deadlock proceedings, and thresholds like 10-2 balance collective judgment with protections against fringe holdouts, supported by economic models showing increased rates without disproportionate errors. In the United States, following the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana mandating for serious federal and state felony convictions, legal scholars have advanced proposals, such as requiring 10 or 11 jurors for guilty verdicts while allowing simple majorities for to eliminate de facto hung juries on the acquittal side. These include asymmetric rules where demands a higher threshold to safeguard against over-conviction, potentially halving mistrial rates based on historical data from states like before Ramos, which permitted 10-2 verdicts and recorded hung rates below 6 percent in many trials. Proponents cite causal that unanimity amplifies the influence of outlier jurors, leading to more deadlocks than substantive , whereas supermajorities preserve minority input while enabling resolution in cases of clear evidentiary consensus. Internationally, similar proposals have informed reforms in systems; for instance, Canada's 1980s debates considered shifting to verdicts post-Charter scrutiny, arguing that unanimity's rarity of true 12-0 splits (often 11-1 or 10-2 beneath) renders it inefficient without improving accuracy, as jury-judge agreement rates remain stable across systems. In , the 1967 Act's introduction of 10-2 verdicts was proposed explicitly to curb hung juries from persistent minorities, achieving sustained reductions in mistrials to under 2 percent in cases by the 1970s. Empirical critiques of these systems note potential suppression of dissenting views, yet data indicate rules correlate with faster deliberations and fewer resource-intensive retrials, prioritizing systemic throughput over absolute consensus in high-volume caseloads.

Criticisms of Current Systems and Empirical Critiques

Critics of the unanimous requirement in current U.S. criminal systems argue that it fosters inefficiencies by necessitating mistrials and retrials when even a single holdout juror prevents consensus, particularly in cases with weak or complex . Empirical data from federal courts indicate hung jury rates averaging 2.5% from 1980 to 1997, while state courts averaged 6.2% across 30 jurisdictions from 1996 to 1998, with higher rates—up to 12%—in populous counties during the early 1970s, reflecting jurisdictional variability rather than a systemic surge. These deadlocks consume significant judicial resources, accounting for approximately 12% of time and over 10% of estimated costs for verdict trials in the studied California counties, exacerbating backlogs in urban areas where rates exceed 10%. Empirical analyses further critique the retrial following hung juries, noting that rates typically decline in subsequent trials, often dropping to half or less of the original prosecutorial expectations, as the initial deadlock signals underlying evidentiary weaknesses or juror-perceived doubts that persist despite repeated efforts. This pattern suggests that current systems permit inefficient resource allocation on marginal cases, where prosecutors may overcharge without sufficient corroboration, leading to disproportionate hung juries in certain demographics, such as young Black males in data from the 1970s. Unlimited retrials, absent stricter judicial intervention under rules like Federal Rule of 29, impose undue burdens on defendants and courts, potentially eroding the double jeopardy protections intended to limit governmental persistence in disputed prosecutions. Additional empirical critiques highlight deficiencies in jury management under unanimous systems, where hung juries correlate with shortcomings, such as inadequate or holdout jurors' resistance to consensus, rather than inherent case merits. Studies spanning decades show stability in rates—federal figures holding at 2-3% for criminal trials—but persistent variability tied to and case complexity, prompting arguments that unmodified overlooks preventable factors like unclear instructions or lack of juror tools, which could reduce deadlocks without altering thresholds. While some analyses deem reform calls premature given low aggregate rates, critics contend that even modest frequencies undermine systemic efficiency and , especially when non-unanimous alternatives historically lowered hungs but faced constitutional invalidation in 2020.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hung_jury
  2. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=rutgersnewarklwps
  3. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-happens-when-a-jury-is-deadlocked/
  4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/unanimity-of-the-jury
  5. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
  6. https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/7074/hung-juries-are-they-a-problem.pdf
  7. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=faculty_articles
  8. https://lotzemosley.com/criminal-law/hung-jury/
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_48
  10. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/must-all-jury-verdicts-be-unanimous.html
  11. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/hung-jury/
  12. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2766&context=flr
  13. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2574&context=law_lawreview
  14. https://repository.law.miami.edu/context/umlr/article/2827/viewcontent/UMLR_20vol_2026_20no_201_20Seidler.pdf
  15. https://www.eji.org/news/supreme-court-holds-jury-verdicts-must-be-unanimous-in-criminal-cases/
  16. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_press/2020/summer/supreme-court-mandates-unanimity-in-state-criminal-trials/
  17. https://corkerbinning.com/jury-unanimity-uk-us-verdict/
  18. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7842&context=penn_law_review
  19. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4844&context=mlr
  20. https://journals.sas.ac.uk/fhs/article/download/4731/4683/8339
  21. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/juries-in-federal-judicial-system
  22. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jeopardy-and-mistrials
  23. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/497/
  24. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/justices-divided-on-retroactive-application-of-jury-unanimity-rule/
  25. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-4-3/ALDE_00013134/
  26. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=facpub
  27. https://lawreform.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Reports/Report-111.pdf
  28. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/majority-jury-verdicts-criminal-trials
  29. https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/379627/LA_Verdicts.pdf
  30. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID929396_code654268.pdf?abstractid=929396&mirid=1
  31. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/126188823/majority-jury-verdicts-common-sense-or-bad-justice
  32. https://thelawassociation.nz/do-we-need-juries/
  33. https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news/defendants-wont-be-acquitted-if-jury-cant-reach-verdict/
  34. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-4-3/ALDE_00013134/%255B%27th%27%2C%2520%27amendment%27%255D
  35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-5924
  36. https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/395
  37. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge
  38. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/03-reprosecution-following-mistrial.html
  39. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2191&context=flr
  40. https://www.mckendreelaw.com/newsletters/general-litigation/hung-juries/
  41. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/17
  42. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/re-trials
  43. https://www.gov.scot/publications/not-proven-verdict-related-reforms-consultation/pages/5/
  44. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/2/
  45. https://www.ppsni.gov.uk/prosecution-process
  46. https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/canadian-jury-system/
  47. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/jus/j32-1/J32-1-27-1980-eng.pdf
  48. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Jury_Procedure
  49. https://www.brydens.com.au/resources/question-of-the-month/what-happens-when-a-jury-cannot-reach-a-unanimous-verdict/
  50. https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/1c0bwrk/majority_jury_decisions_now_coming_to_canberra/
  51. https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0023/latest/DLM2191700.html
  52. https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/test/juries/the-jurys-decision/
  53. https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/prosecution-guidelines/stays-of-proceedings
  54. https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/prosecution-guidelines/retrials
  55. https://academic.oup.com/book/57511/chapter/467306359
  56. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/deadlocked_jury
  57. https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/trial.shtml
  58. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a579f/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/criminal/crimpttresponsivehtml5.zip/Crim_PTT/Ch_12_Trial/Mistrial_and_Double_Jeopardy_Implications_of_Mistrial-.htm
  59. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/reprosecution-after-mistrial
  60. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol118/iss4/5/
  61. https://www.hklaw.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2022/05/law360--can-and-should-a-court-limit-repeated-retrials.pdf?rev=8ba8192630ba4442856c0a3243d75b70&sc_lang=en&hash=CCF6E55ED4247F3CF0F2B5CA2FBCDCF5
  62. https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/what-is-a-hung-jury-what-happens-next/
  63. https://www.jsmillersolicitors.co.uk/understanding-a-hung-jury-in-the-uk/
  64. https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/hung-jury-definition/
  65. https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/how-can-someone-be-retried-after-a-hung-jury.html
  66. https://jbassettlaw.com/is-a-defendant-released-after-a-mistrial-in-new-york/
  67. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation03.html
  68. https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/31.7%2520Juror%2520Deadlock_0.pdf
  69. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/317/
  70. https://www.newyorkappellatelawyer.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-manifest-necessity-before-declaring-a-mistrial-a-judge-must-consider-all-circumstances/
  71. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3405&context=facpubs
  72. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199372.pdf
  73. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/404/
  74. https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/jury-rape-verdicts-myths-reality
  75. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ccc1ebde5274a34ea45ceb8/THE_Final_Response_XXXX_171220007.pdf
  76. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126988/pdf/
  77. https://kkcomcon.com/doc/KHungJury.pdf
  78. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3393&context=facpubs
  79. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/397/
  80. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=briefs
  81. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2388&context=facpub
  82. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7415&context=jclc
  83. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5924/103255/20190618112356367_Ramos%2520Amicus%2520Brief%2520FINAL%2520pdf.pdf
  84. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1442&context=lr
  85. https://web.utk.edu/~wneilson/IRLE-March-2005.pdf
  86. https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-problem-of-hung-juries-and-how-to-solve-it.html
  87. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/jr000251h.pdf
  88. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929396
  89. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/24/majority-verdicts-england-wales-brought-partly-racial-class-reasons
  90. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/are-hung-juries-problem
  91. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/empirical-study-frequency-occurrence-causes-effects-and-amount-time
  92. https://www.trialmethods.com/uncategorized/conviction-rates-drop-retrials-following-hung-juries/
  93. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=nulr
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.