Should a hung jury in favor of acquittal count as an acquittal? For example, if seven jurors vote not guilty and five jurors vote guilty, should that count as a not guilty verdict instead of a mistrial? I think that's reasonable. What are your thoughts?

That's a hung jury. That is a mistrial.

Not an acquittal.

What were you charged with?

I know it's a mistrial, but I was asking people's opinion on whether or not they think it should count as an acquittal instead.

I wasn't charged with anything, but it seems weird to me that even if eleven jurors vote not guilty and one votes guilty, the person can still be retried.

Depends on the rules of the state and court the trial took place in.

In some states, a 2/3 or 3/4 majority is enough to convict on misdemeanor charges. I don't know if it goes the other way, that similar super majorities might also be good enough to acquit.

Everywhere I know of requires a unanimous verdict in felony cases.

lethalninja said:

---

I know it's a mistrial, but I was asking people's opinion on whether or not they think it should count as an acquittal instead.

---

No.

Here's why. Capone era juries. Corrupt one? Get off under your scenario.

Get tried again? Not as much upside.

Pretty sure this "hung majority to acquit" thing is a Civil Law-country notion too.

A white criminal kills a black child in Vidor; the jury of the criminal's peers was drawn, & 10 white supremacist jurors vote to acquit while 2 black jurors vote guilty.

Now what say you?

BTW: Be careful of the pitfalls posed by your answer, as we saw a similar outcome in the trial following the LA/ Rodney King Riots, where video evidence of the attack by the black defendants upon Reginald Denny wasn't deemed enough for the brain trust that rendered not guilty verdicts.

It's very unlikely that a majority of jurors would be white supremacists, but it should still count as an acquittal unless the defendant paid them off to vote not guilty.

OJ got off because even though the jury knew he did it, they hated the cops more.

lethalninja said:

---

Should a hung jury in favor of acquittal count as an acquittal? For example, if seven jurors vote not guilty and five jurors vote guilty, should that count as a not guilty verdict instead of a mistrial? I think that's reasonable. What are your thoughts?

---

If you want a majority vote to count for an acquittal you should be just as much in favor of a majority vote in favor of guilt. I mean if you want to consistent with your logic.

The answer is no. We want the evidence to be just as strong for guilt as for non guilt.

Mathguy64 said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Should a hung jury in favor of acquittal count as an acquittal? For example, if seven jurors vote not guilty and five jurors vote guilty, should that count as a not guilty verdict instead of a mistrial? I think that's reasonable. What are your thoughts?

---

If you want a majority vote to count for an acquittal you should be just as much in favor of a majority vote in favor of guilt. I mean if you want to consistent with your logic.

The answer is no. We want the evidence to be just as strong for guilt as for non guilt.

---

I agree with your first paragraph not your second per se.

Guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, thats a high bar. Therefore acquittal is a up to and including a reasonable doubt, which isn't as strong.

Quote:

---

Guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, thats a high bar. Therefore acquittal is a up to and including a reasonable doubt, which isn't as strong.

---

Along those same lines hung jury acquittal does not mean "not guilty". Still a high bar. Hung jury should be designated "hung jury". Leanings towards guilty or not shouldn't even be noted.

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

A white criminal kills a black child in Vidor; the jury of the criminal's peers was drawn, & 10 white supremacist jurors vote to acquit while 2 black jurors vote guilty.

Now what say you?

BTW: Be careful of the pitfalls posed by your answer, as we saw a similar outcome in the trial following the LA/ Rodney King Riots, where video evidence of the attack by the black defendants upon Reginald Denny wasn't deemed enough for the brain trust that rendered not guilty verdicts.

---

It's 2023, not 1923.

lethalninja said:

---

I wasn't charged with anything, but it seems weird to me that even if eleven jurors vote not guilty and one votes guilty, the person can still be retried.

---

While they can be retried, any reasonable DA is likely to not retry a case if they find out the jury was 11 - 1 against them the first time. I assume you don't want a person found guilty if it is 11-1 to convict so why the double standard?

I would be ok if there is a single lone juror hold out on either side of guilty or not guilty that they be removed so you don't get someone with an agenda hanging a jury.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

Perhaps the dumbest suggestion here. I have seen dozens of dead-to-rights guilty defendants get acquitted because today's juries are just awful. Under your suggestion, no prosecutor would ever take a case to trial on the chance that an ignorant jury will let him walk.

the_batman26 said:

---

Pretty sure this "hung majority to acquit" thing is a Civil Law-country notion too.

---

I'm a lawyer, and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Along the same lines, I sometimes think the pitching team should be credited a run in the last inning if they make a double play.

In Civil Law countries a simply majority is needed to convict, where their panel is composed of law school-trained judges and civilians. It doesn't have to be unanimous.

Unless I'm missing something from what this question is asking.

Not an acquittal. If 12 jurors can't agree on the facts or the law, even after being read an Allen charge, there was something wrong with either the trial or the jurors.

Mistrial.

lb3 said:

---

Not an acquittal. If 12 jurors can't agree on the facts or the law, even after being read an Allen charge, there was something wrong with either the trial or the jurors.

Mistrial.

---

Or is that an indication of reasonable doubt. It always feels a bit odd to say the state must prove beyond a resonable doubt yet if not all jurors agree on guilty or innocent it is a miss trial.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

If you implement that nonsense, defense attorneys should only be able to present theories they know to be true. No more gaslighting juries with hypotheticals. and if your client is guilty, you must tell the jury as much or lose your license.

lb3 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

If you implement that nonsense, defense attorneys should only be able to present theories they know to be true. No more gaslighting juries with hypotheticals. and if your client is guilty, you must tell the jury as much or lose your license.

---

What??

aggiehawg said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

If you implement that nonsense, defense attorneys should only be able to present theories they know to be true. No more gaslighting juries with hypotheticals. and if your client is guilty, you must tell the jury as much or lose your license.

---

What??

---

Having just sat through two trials for my daughter's death, I've seen first hand how different judges can have completely different takes on what should be admissible. I've seen defense attorneys not just lie to juries which is their job, but also lie to the court in their appeals.

Get off my lawn was suggesting that prosecutors should face consequences if they have too many acquittals. If we were to implement his non-sensical proposal, I provided a few equally non-sensical suggestions to level the playing field.

lb3 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

If you implement that nonsense, defense attorneys should only be able to present theories they know to be true. No more gaslighting juries with hypotheticals. and if your client is guilty, you must tell the jury as much or lose your license.

---

What??

---

Having just sat through two trials for my daughter's death, I've seen first hand how different judges can have completely different takes on what should be admissible. I've seen defense attorneys not just lie to juries which is their job, but also lie to the court in their appeals.

Get off my lawn was suggesting that prosecutors should face consequences if they have too many acquittals. If we were to implement his non-sensical proposal, I provided a few equally non-sensical suggestions to level the playing field.

---

Man, you know my heart breaks about your daughter and your trying to get justice for her.

I certainly meant no offense to you and yours.

Tend to agree. Doesn't seem fair to me that the state should get another shot at a conviction

aggiehawg said:

---

lb3 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First do away with prosecutorial immunity. If you represent the state and you bring weak cases / non-cases against the residents, you should face consequences. An acquittal should be accompanied by a questions as to whether the state acted appropriately in bringing and presenting their case. If not: strikes toward their removal on their record.

---

If you implement that nonsense, defense attorneys should only be able to present theories they know to be true. No more gaslighting juries with hypotheticals. and if your client is guilty, you must tell the jury as much or lose your license.

---

What??

---

Having just sat through two trials for my daughter's death, I've seen first hand how different judges can have completely different takes on what should be admissible. I've seen defense attorneys not just lie to juries which is their job, but also lie to the court in their appeals.

Get off my lawn was suggesting that prosecutors should face consequences if they have too many acquittals. If we were to implement his non-sensical proposal, I provided a few equally non-sensical suggestions to level the playing field.

---

Man, you know my heart breaks about your daughter and your trying to get justice for her.

I certainly meant no offense to you and yours.

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

lethalninja said:

---

Should a hung jury in favor of acquittal count as an acquittal? For example, if seven jurors vote not guilty and five jurors vote guilty, should that count as a not guilty verdict instead of a mistrial? I think that's reasonable. What are your thoughts?

---

I agree with that, and that should probably be the rule.

All things considered.

Doesn't matter which way it falls, the verdict needs to be unanimous to count.