Hung juries
Hung juries occur when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision to convict or acquit a defendant, resulting in a deadlock. This phenomenon is a significant concern within the criminal justice system due to its emotional toll on victims and families, as well as the financial implications of retrying cases. Various factors contribute to hung juries, including individual juror characteristics, group dynamics during deliberation, and the clarity of evidence presented. Critics of the jury system suggest that poor group interaction, juror misunderstandings, or refusal to follow the law can lead to a deadlock. Research into hung juries has been limited, partly due to the lack of systematic records and the confidentiality surrounding jury deliberations. Studies indicate that hung juries occur in about 5.5% of cases, and the landmark Supreme Court decision in Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) allowed for majority verdicts, which has been linked to a reduction in hung juries. However, while majority verdicts may streamline the process, they can adversely affect deliberation quality and juror satisfaction. Understanding the complexities surrounding hung juries can aid in discussions about jury reform and the overall effectiveness of the jury system.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Hung juries
SIGNIFICANCE: The controversy over the phenomenon of hung juries has been the catalyst for empirical research and jury reform.
The occurrence of hung juries within the criminal justice system has long been a controversial and intriguing phenomenon. Hung juries have remained an issue of concern over time because of their potential negative consequences, which include the emotional impact on the victims and families and the costs of retrying cases.
There are many explanations as to why jury members fail to convict or acquit a defendant. A hung jury may be the result of individual, group, or evidentiary factors. Many critics of the jury system propose that hung juries result from failures within the group interaction during deliberation. Hung juries have been attributed to jurors’ poor intelligence, personality eccentricities, corruption, difficulty with evidence comprehension, and outright refusal to follow the law (such as jury nullification ). In addition, ambiguous or inadequate evidence presentation by the attorneys may also result in a jury deadlocking.
Understanding the actual factors contributing to hung juries is challenging. For example, many jurisdictions do not maintain systematic records of jury trials that hang because they occur so infrequently. More specifically, jury deliberations have long been viewed as a “black box” demanding absolute confidentiality. As a result, early research on juries, and more specifically on hung juries, was scarce before the mid-1970s. Groundbreaking and early empirical research was conducted on the American jury by Harry Kalven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel. Their study briefly addressed the issue of hung juries and found that hung juries occurred at a rate of 5.5 percent, or roughly one in twenty.
The catalyst for empirical research on the jury system and hung juries was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Apodaca v. Oregon (1972). In Apodaca, the Supreme Court decided unanimous verdicts were not constitutionally mandated in noncapital cases and that a majority vote by jurors could convict or acquit a defendant. The Court’s reasoning was that allowing majority-rule verdicts would increase the efficiency of the court process and decrease the cost of a jury trial, with little or no negative consequences on the quality of jury deliberations.
Subsequent research confirmed that the rate of hung juries and the length of jury deliberations decreased when majority-rule verdicts were used. However, empirical research also revealed that nonunanimous verdicts decreased the quality of deliberation and decreased juror satisfaction with the deliberation process. For example, once a majority verdict was met, the minority or dissenting opinions no longer needed to be considered.
Bibliography
Abramson, Jeffery. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1994. Print.
Gelman, Elijah N. "Hung Out to Try: A Rule 29 Revision to Stop Hung Jury Retrials." Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 118, no. 4, 24 Jan. 2024, scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol118/iss4/5/. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, and G. Thomas Munsterman. Are Hung Juries a Problem? Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Print.
Kalven, Harry, and Hans Zeisel. The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Print.
Roth, Tanya. "What Happens When a Jury Is Deadlocked?" FindLaw, 28 May 2024, www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-happens-when-a-jury-is-deadlocked/. Accessed 5 July 2024.