A verdict is the formal decision reached at the end of a trial. In a criminal case, it answers whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. In a civil case, it answers whether the defendant is liable for the harm the plaintiff claims and, if so, how much the plaintiff recovers. The verdict and the judgment are not the same thing: the verdict is the factual finding returned by the jury (or the judge in a bench trial), while the judgment is the court’s official order that makes the verdict enforceable and starts the clock for post-trial motions and appeals.
Criminal Verdicts
In a criminal trial, the jury returns one of two verdicts on each charge: guilty or not guilty. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning the evidence must leave jurors firmly convinced the defendant committed the crime. A not-guilty verdict means the prosecution failed to meet that standard. It does not necessarily mean the jury believed the defendant was innocent.
A not-guilty verdict is final. Under the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protections, the government cannot retry a defendant who has been acquitted, even if new evidence surfaces later. A guilty verdict, by contrast, moves the case to sentencing, where the judge works from statutory guidelines, the defendant’s criminal history, and the specific facts of the case.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 3559 – Sentencing Classification of Offenses
Civil Verdicts and Damages
Civil verdicts work on a lower standard. The plaintiff has to show that liability is more likely true than not, a standard called preponderance of the evidence. If the jury finds the defendant liable, it then decides damages.
Civil damages generally fall into two categories:
- Compensatory damages: cover the plaintiff’s actual losses, including medical bills, lost income, property repair costs, and pain and suffering. The goal is to restore the injured person to the position they would have been in without the harm.
- Punitive damages: punish the defendant for especially reckless or malicious conduct and are meant to deter similar behavior. The Supreme Court has indicated that punitive damages exceeding a single-digit ratio to compensatory damages will rarely survive a due process challenge, though no rigid cap applies.2Justia. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
Many states also impose their own statutory caps on punitive damages, using fixed dollar limits or multipliers tied to the compensatory award. The rules vary widely from one state to the next.
How Many Jurors Must Agree
The number of jurors who must agree depends on whether the case is criminal or civil and whether it is in federal or state court.
In federal criminal trials, the Sixth Amendment requires all twelve jurors to agree before a defendant can be convicted or acquitted.3Cornell Law Institute. Unanimity of the Jury The Supreme Court extended that rule to state criminal trials in 2020, holding that the Constitution requires a unanimous verdict to convict anyone of a serious offense regardless of which court system handles the case.4Supreme Court of the United States. Ramos v. Louisiana That decision ended the split-vote rules that had remained in Louisiana and Oregon.
Civil cases are more flexible. Federal civil trials require unanimity by default, though the parties can agree to accept a majority vote.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 48 Many state courts allow supermajority verdicts in civil cases. A common threshold is agreement by five-sixths of the jury, such as ten out of twelve. Roughly thirty states permit some form of non-unanimous civil verdict.
When a Jury Cannot Agree
If jurors remain split and cannot reach the required number of votes, the jury is “hung.” Before declaring a mistrial, most judges will try to break the deadlock. The most common tool is an instruction urging jurors to keep deliberating and to seriously consider each other’s views. This is sometimes called an Allen charge, after an 1896 Supreme Court case that approved the practice in federal courts. Critics argue these instructions put too much pressure on holdout jurors, and a number of states have banned them.
If no agreement comes, the judge declares a mistrial. The case is not resolved. The prosecution or plaintiff can choose to try the case again with a new jury. In criminal cases, a mistrial from a hung jury does not count as an acquittal, so retrial does not violate double jeopardy. Prosecutors sometimes decline to retry when the jury split heavily in the defendant’s favor, since the same evidence is unlikely to produce a different outcome.
General Verdicts and Special Verdicts
Courts use two main verdict formats, and the choice depends on how complex the issues are.
A general verdict is the simpler form. The jury announces that it finds for the plaintiff or the defendant without explaining its reasoning or detailing how it resolved individual factual disputes. Most straightforward cases use this format. The court can also submit written questions alongside a general verdict form to check whether the jury’s factual findings are consistent with its overall conclusion. If the answers contradict the verdict, the judge can order a new trial.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 49 – Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
A special verdict takes the opposite approach. Instead of a single bottom-line finding, the jury answers a series of specific factual questions, and the judge then applies the law to those answers to determine the legal outcome. Courts use special verdicts in cases with multiple claims or complicated fact patterns, and they create a clearer record for appeal because reviewing courts can see exactly where the jury landed on each disputed issue.
When a Judge Decides Instead of a Jury
Not every case involves a jury. In a bench trial, the judge is both the legal authority and the fact finder. Instead of returning a verdict form, the judge issues written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings spell out what the judge determined actually happened based on the evidence, and the conclusions explain how the law applies to those facts.7Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52 – Findings and Conclusions by the Court
Bench trials are common in contract disputes, family law matters, and cases where both parties waive their right to a jury. A judge’s factual findings carry significant weight on appeal. A reviewing court will not overturn them unless they are clearly erroneous, meaning the appellate judges are firmly convinced a mistake was made.
How a Verdict Is Announced and Becomes Enforceable
When the jury reaches its decision, it notifies the bailiff, and the jurors return to the courtroom. The foreperson hands the signed verdict form to the clerk or judge, who confirms it is filled out correctly. The clerk reads the verdict aloud in open court while the court reporter creates an official record.
Either side can ask the judge to poll the jury. Polling means the judge asks each juror individually whether the announced verdict reflects their personal decision. If the poll reveals that the required number of jurors do not actually agree, the judge can send the jury back to deliberate further or order a new trial.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 48 Polling exists as a safeguard against any juror feeling pressured into going along with the group.
A verdict does not become enforceable until the court formally enters judgment. When a jury returns a general verdict, the clerk prepares and enters the judgment without waiting for the judge’s direction. Special verdicts and more complex outcomes require the judge to approve the form of the judgment before the clerk enters it.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58 – Entering Judgment Every judgment must be set out in a separate document, and the clock for post-trial motions and appeals starts running from the date of entry.
Challenging a Verdict After Trial
A jury verdict is not always the end of the case. The losing side has several tools before resorting to a full appeal.
Before the jury deliberates, either side can ask the judge for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the other side. In criminal cases, a successful motion by the defense functions as an acquittal. In civil cases, it ends the claim without the jury weighing in. If the judge denies that motion and the jury returns a verdict, the losing party can file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law within 28 days after judgment is entered. The court can let the verdict stand, order a new trial, or throw out the verdict and enter judgment for the other side.9Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial
A motion for a new trial asks the judge to scrap the verdict and start over. Grounds include errors in the jury instructions, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by a party or juror, or a verdict that is against the clear weight of the evidence. The court can also grant a new trial on its own initiative for any reason that would justify granting one on a party’s motion, as long as it acts within 28 days of judgment and explains its reasons.10Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Challenging what happened in the deliberation room itself is harder. The general rule is that jurors cannot testify about their discussions, reasoning, or how individual votes were cast. The exceptions are narrow: a juror can testify that outside information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, that an outside party tried to influence a juror, or that a mistake was made in filling out the verdict form.11Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 606 – Jurors Competency as a Witness
Appealing a Verdict
Appeals do not retry the facts. An appellate court reviews whether the trial court made legal errors that affected the outcome, such as admitting evidence that should have been excluded, giving incorrect jury instructions, or applying the wrong legal standard. The facts themselves, as found by the jury, receive significant deference. A reviewing court will uphold a jury’s factual findings as long as any rational fact finder could have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence presented.
To preserve the right to raise an issue on appeal, the losing party almost always must have objected to the error during trial. An attorney who lets a flawed jury instruction go unchallenged will have a much harder time arguing on appeal that the instruction was improper. Appellate courts apply a far more forgiving standard to objections that were properly preserved than to issues raised for the first time on appeal.
Even when an error occurred, the appeal succeeds only if the error was prejudicial, meaning it likely influenced the verdict. Harmless errors, ones that probably did not change the outcome, do not warrant reversal. Most verdicts survive appeal. Overturning a jury’s decision requires showing both that something went wrong and that it mattered enough to undermine confidence in the result.