If one juror disagrees in a criminal case, there is no verdict on the charge in dispute. The U.S. Constitution requires all twelve jurors to agree before a defendant can be convicted of a serious crime, so a single holdout is enough to stop a guilty verdict. What happens next depends on whether that juror changes their mind during further deliberation. If the disagreement sticks, the judge declares a mistrial, and the prosecution decides whether to retry the case, offer a plea deal, or drop the charges.
That is the short version. The longer version matters, because the path from one juror’s “no” to a final outcome runs through several steps, and each one shapes what the defendant and the prosecution end up facing.
Why One Vote Is Enough to Block a Conviction
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury trial for defendants charged with non-petty offenses. In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Ramos v. Louisiana that this right requires a unanimous verdict to convict in both federal and state courts.1Supreme Court of the United States. Ramos v. Louisiana Every juror has to agree. One disagreement is a veto.
The unanimity rule pairs with the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. If even one juror genuinely believes the prosecution hasn’t met that burden, the system treats that doubt as meaningful enough to block a conviction. The right to a jury trial does not apply to petty offenses, generally those carrying a maximum sentence of six months or less, which can be tried by a judge alone.2Congress.gov. Amdt6.4.1 Overview of Right to Trial by Jury
What the Judge Does First
When a jury reports that it cannot reach a unanimous decision, the judge does not immediately end the trial. The standard first move is an “Allen charge,” named after the 1896 Supreme Court case Allen v. United States.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Allen v. United States Some lawyers call it the “dynamite charge” because it is meant to blast through the deadlock.
The instruction sends jurors back to re-examine the evidence and listen to each other with genuine openness. The Supreme Court approved language suggesting that jurors in the minority should ask themselves whether their doubts are reasonable given that equally honest, equally intelligent people reached a different conclusion. Jurors in the majority were told to do the same in reverse.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Allen v. United States
There is a hard limit. No juror is supposed to abandon an honest belief about the evidence just to reach a verdict. If a reviewing court later finds the instruction crossed into coercion, the resulting conviction can be overturned on appeal. Several states have rejected or modified the Allen charge for that reason, and federal courts in the Ninth Circuit, for example, use a model instruction that encourages continued discussion while reminding jurors to decide based on the evidence.4Ninth Circuit District and Bankruptcy Courts. 7.7 Deadlocked Jury
Can the Judge Replace a Holdout Juror?
No. A judge cannot remove a juror simply because that juror is the lone holdout. The right to a unanimous verdict would be meaningless if the court could swap out anyone who voted the wrong way. A juror who participates in deliberations, listens to others, and explains their reasoning is doing exactly what the system asks, even if the conclusion is unpopular.
There is a narrow exception. A juror who flat-out refuses to deliberate, who won’t engage with the evidence or discuss the case at all, can potentially be removed for failing to perform their duty. The line between “I’ve considered everything and I disagree” and “I refuse to participate” is tightly scrutinized, because getting it wrong means reversing a verdict on appeal.
Federal rules allow a judge to seat a retained alternate (who must restart deliberations with the rest of the jury) or, in some circumstances, let eleven jurors return a verdict if the parties agree or the court finds good cause.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 23 – Trial by Jury or by the Court Good cause never includes a juror simply holding a minority opinion.
When Disagreement Becomes a Mistrial
If the jury tries again after the Allen charge and still cannot agree, the foreperson reports back that the deadlock is unbreakable. At that point the judge decides whether more time might help. There is no fixed clock. Deliberations can stretch hours, days, or weeks depending on the complexity of the case. Once the judge concludes that further deliberation would be pointless, the court declares a mistrial.
A mistrial ends the trial without a verdict. The jury is dismissed, and the proceeding is essentially erased for legal purposes. No conviction, no acquittal. The case stays unresolved, which leaves the door open for the prosecution to try again.
Partial Verdicts on Multi-Count Cases
Trials often involve more than one charge. A defendant may face assault and weapons possession, or fraud across several counts. The jury does not have to be unanimous on every count to deliver results on some of them. Federal rules allow the jury to return a verdict on any count where it has reached agreement, even while deadlocking on others.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 31 – Jury Verdict
The same applies when multiple defendants are tried together. The jury can convict or acquit one defendant while remaining stuck on another. When partial verdicts come in, the judge declares a mistrial only on the unresolved counts, and the prosecution can retry those specific charges without running into double jeopardy problems.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 31 – Jury Verdict The completed verdicts stand.
So a single holdout’s impact may be narrower than it first appears. If twelve jurors agree on three out of four charges but split on the fourth, the defendant is convicted on those three. The disagreement only unsettles the one unresolved charge.
Jury Polling: One Last Chance to Disagree
Even after the foreperson announces a unanimous verdict, either side can ask the judge to poll each juror individually. Polling asks every juror, one by one and on the record, whether the announced verdict is truly their own. If any juror says no, the announced verdict falls apart.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 31 – Jury Verdict
When polling reveals a lack of unanimity, the judge can send the jury back to deliberate further or declare a mistrial and discharge them. A juror who felt pressured in the jury room but went along to avoid conflict gets one last opportunity to speak honestly in open court. Jurors rarely break ranks at this stage, but defense attorneys almost always request a poll after a guilty verdict for exactly this reason.
What Happens to the Defendant After a Mistrial
A hung jury does not mean the defendant walks free. Because no verdict was reached, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment does not block another prosecution. The Supreme Court established this nearly two centuries ago in United States v. Perez, holding that when a jury cannot reach a verdict, the “manifest necessity” of ending the trial justifies allowing a second prosecution.7Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution Annotated – Re-Prosecution After Mistrial Double jeopardy blocks retrial only after an actual acquittal or conviction.
The prosecution then has three practical options:
- Retry the case. A new jury is selected and all evidence is presented from scratch. The prosecution gets a second chance, but the defense now knows exactly how the government will present its case.
- Negotiate a plea deal. A hung jury often signals cracks in the prosecution’s case. If several jurors leaned toward acquittal, the prosecutor may offer a plea to a lesser charge rather than risk a second hung jury or an outright acquittal. The defense may also prefer the certainty of a deal over the stress and expense of another trial.
- Drop the charges. If the jury split suggests the evidence simply isn’t strong enough, the prosecution may conclude a retrial isn’t worth the resources. Seriousness matters: prosecutors are far more likely to retry a murder case than a low-level fraud charge.
The decision often comes down to practical realities as much as legal strategy. A retrial consumes court time, witness availability, and budget. If key witnesses have moved away or become less cooperative, the prosecution’s case may be weaker the second time around.
Civil Cases Work Differently
Everything above applies to criminal trials. In federal civil cases, unanimity is the default, but the parties can agree in advance to accept a non-unanimous verdict.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 48 – Number of Jurors, Verdict, Polling Many state courts go further, allowing civil verdicts based on a supermajority (commonly five of six, or ten of twelve) without anyone’s consent. On a civil jury, one disagreement may not matter at all depending on the jurisdiction. On a criminal jury, it carries the full weight of the unanimity requirement, and one juror who genuinely believes the evidence doesn’t add up has the power to prevent a conviction.