A jury in a criminal trial must determine whether the accused individuals are guilty or not guilty of any charged crimes. The decisions are in the form of a verdict. Since an individual may be charged with multiple crimes, and there may be more than one individual on trial, the verdict will be made up of several jury decisions. The jury must decide on each charged crime and for each accused individual.

Since the verdict is made up of several decisions, there's a chance that some of them may conflict with each other. This is called an inconsistent verdict. An individual found guilty of one crime, called a conviction, may challenge the verdict on the basis that it's inconsistent with the jury's decision that he's not guilty of another crime, called an acquittal. However, even if a verdict is inconsistent, it usually can't be set aside on that basis alone.

Causes of Inconsistent Verdicts

Accused individuals, called defendants, may be charged for a variety of different crimes. There may also be other individuals charged for the same crimes, called co-defendants. Since criminal trials vary to a great degree, there may be many reasons why a particular verdict is inconsistent. Some examples include:

  • Jury compassion
  • Jury compromise
  • Misunderstanding of the jury instructions

An inconsistent acquittal doesn't automatically imply that the jury was confused or had reasonable doubt. An acquittal that's inconsistent with a conviction could have resulted from jury leniency. Therefore, a jury finding of not guilty isn't the same as a finding of insufficient evidence to convict the defendant.

Verdict Consistency Is Not Needed

The decisions of the jury as to different charged crimes don't have to be consistent to have a valid verdict. Each charged crime is treated separately from the other charged crimes. A jury may use compassion or compromise in deciding what crimes an accused individual is guilty of committing.

Challenging a Verdict Based on Inconsistency

Since a verdict doesn't have to be consistent, a defendant can't challenge a conviction on the basis that he was acquitted on another charged crime. Inconsistency isn't a sufficient reason to set aside the verdict. An appellate court will only examine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The conviction doesn't have to be rationally compatible with the acquittal.

However, a court will set aside a verdict if a jury finding of guilt on one crime necessarily negates an essential element to another crime in which the defendant was found guilty. Therefore, a defendant can't be convicted of two crimes in which, if one crime was committed, the other crime couldn't have been committed. That would be legally inconsistent, and the verdict would have to be set aside.

Inconsistency Between Co-Defendants

Sometimes an inconsistent result may be created if a jury finds one defendant guilty of a crime and the co-defendant not guilty. This may happen with the crime of conspiracy. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. Sometimes a defendant is convicted of conspiracy, but the sole co-defendant is acquitted of the crime.

Most courts will uphold verdicts even though they're inconsistent between co-defendants. Verdicts don't have to demonstrate rational consistency. A jury may acquit a defendant whom it considers guilty based on leniency and convict a co-defendant of the same crime.

Only a few courts have set aside a verdict based on inconsistency between co-defendants. They usually hold that the evidence must be precisely the same and identical in all respects as to both defendants.

Questions for Your Attorney

  • Can I have my conviction for selling cocaine set aside on the basis that I was acquitted of possessing cocaine?
  • If I am charged with a conspiracy to commit a crime, and the co-defendant is found not guilty, am I automatically entitled to be found not guilty since there needs to be two or more people for a conspiracy?
  • Can I be found guilty of committing both murder and manslaughter of the same person even though the crimes share essential elements?