A verdict is the formal decision that ends a trial. In a criminal case, the verdict is the finding of guilty or not guilty. In a civil case, it is the finding that the defendant is liable or not liable, and if liable, usually how much they owe. Whoever serves as the finder of fact — a jury in a jury trial, the judge in a bench trial — delivers it after hearing all the evidence and arguments.
Everything that follows a trial, from sentencing to appeals, flows from this single determination.
Verdict vs. Judgment
These two words get used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. The verdict answers the factual question: did the prosecution prove guilt, or did the plaintiff prove the defendant’s responsibility? The judgment is the court’s official legal order that follows. A judge enters judgment based on the verdict, and that judgment is what creates enforceable consequences like a prison sentence or an obligation to pay damages. The verdict is the factual foundation. The judgment is the legal structure built on top of it.
Who Delivers the Verdict
In a jury trial, a group of citizens selected from the community serves as the finder of fact. They evaluate witness testimony, review exhibits, and weigh the credibility of each side’s evidence to reach their decision.1Legal Information Institute. Wex – Trier of Fact The jury decides what happened; the judge decides what the law says about it. Jurors do not need legal training because the judge handles the legal side through instructions given before deliberations.
In a bench trial, the judge takes on both roles, interpreting the law and evaluating the facts.2Legal Information Institute. Fact Finder Bench trials are common when both parties waive their right to a jury or when no jury right exists. The process moves faster, but one person makes the entire decision.
The Standard the Verdict Must Meet
Before anyone can rule for one side, they have to be convinced to a certain level. That level is the standard of proof, and it changes depending on what is at stake.
- Beyond a reasonable doubt. The highest standard, required for criminal convictions. The prosecution’s evidence must leave jurors firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. If there is a reasonable doubt, the verdict must be not guilty.3Legal Information Institute. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
- Preponderance of the evidence. The standard in most civil cases. The plaintiff only needs to show that their version of events is more likely true than not. If the evidence is equally balanced, the plaintiff loses.4United States District Court District of Vermont. Burden of Proof – Preponderance of Evidence
- Clear and convincing evidence. A middle standard used in certain civil matters like fraud claims, will contests, and decisions about withdrawing life support. The evidence must make the claim “highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.”5Legal Information Institute. Clear and Convincing Evidence
The gap between these standards is significant. A defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial can still be found liable in a civil case based on the same conduct, because the civil plaintiff only has to clear a lower bar.
Types of Verdicts
Criminal Verdicts
Criminal verdicts are straightforward: guilty or not guilty. There is no middle ground and no partial liability. A not-guilty verdict does not necessarily mean the jury believed the defendant was innocent. It means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.3Legal Information Institute. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt When multiple charges are involved, the jury considers each one separately and can return guilty on some counts and not guilty on others.
Civil Verdicts
Civil verdicts determine whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiff and, if so, for how much. Compensatory damages reimburse the plaintiff for actual losses like medical costs, lost income, and property damage. In cases involving especially reckless or intentional misconduct, the jury may also award punitive damages designed to punish the defendant and discourage similar behavior. Punitive damages typically require the plaintiff to meet the higher clear and convincing evidence standard, even in an otherwise preponderance-of-the-evidence case.5Legal Information Institute. Clear and Convincing Evidence
General and Special Verdicts
Verdicts also differ in how much detail the jury provides. A general verdict is the familiar form: the jury announces a winner and, in civil cases, a dollar amount, without explaining its reasoning.6Legal Information Institute. General Verdict A special verdict works differently. Instead of declaring a winner, the jury answers a series of specific factual questions submitted by the judge, such as whether the defendant failed to maintain the property or whether the plaintiff was aware of the risk. The judge then applies the law to those factual findings and enters judgment accordingly.7Legal Information Institute. Rule 49 Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
A hybrid also exists. In a general verdict with written questions, the jury delivers an overall verdict but also answers specific factual questions. If the answers contradict the verdict, the judge can enter judgment based on the answers, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial.7Legal Information Institute. Rule 49 Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
How a Jury Reaches Its Verdict
The Judge’s Instructions
Before deliberations begin, the judge reads the jury a set of instructions explaining the relevant law, the standard of proof, and how to apply legal concepts to the facts they have heard. These instructions are the only legal guidance the jury receives. Attorneys from both sides propose specific language they want included, but the judge makes the final decision about what the instructions say.8Legal Information Institute. Jury Instructions Flawed instructions are one of the most common grounds for appeal, because they can steer a jury toward the wrong legal framework for the entire deliberation.
Deliberation and Unanimity
Once instructed, the jury retires to a private room to review the evidence and discuss the case. No one else is present. The foreperson, selected by the jurors themselves, leads the discussion and manages votes. In all serious criminal cases, both federal and state, every juror must agree on the verdict. The Supreme Court confirmed in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity to convict a defendant of a serious offense in any American courtroom.9Constitution Annotated. Amdt6.4.4.3 Unanimity of the Jury Civil cases follow different rules, and many jurisdictions permit non-unanimous civil verdicts.
Polling the Jury
After the jury announces its verdict but before the jurors are officially dismissed, either party can ask the judge to poll them individually. Each juror is asked, one by one, whether the announced verdict reflects their personal decision. If polling reveals that the verdict is not actually unanimous, the judge can send the jury back to deliberate further or declare a mistrial.10Legal Information Institute. Rule 31 Jury Verdict It is the last moment where a juror who was pressured into agreement in the jury room can speak up.
When the Jury Cannot Agree
Sometimes a jury simply cannot reach the required level of agreement. When jurors remain deadlocked after extended deliberation, that is a hung jury.11Legal Information Institute. Hung Jury The judge will usually send them back with encouragement to try again, but at some point, if no resolution is possible, the judge declares a mistrial.
A mistrial from a hung jury does not produce either an acquittal or a conviction. The case resets. The prosecution then decides whether to retry the case with a new jury or drop the charges. Retrying a defendant after a hung jury does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the original trial never reached a conclusion.12Justia. Richardson v United States 468 US 317 (1984)
When a Judge Can Override the Jury
Juries do not have absolute power. In narrow circumstances, the judge can step in and effectively take the decision away from them.
In a criminal case, if the prosecution’s evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could convict, the defendant can ask the judge to enter a judgment of acquittal. The motion can be made after the prosecution rests, after all evidence closes, or even within 14 days after a guilty verdict.13Justia. Fed R Crim P 29 – Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal The standard is demanding: the judge must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and can grant acquittal only if the evidence is genuinely insufficient to sustain a conviction. Unlike a jury acquittal, which the prosecution cannot appeal, a judge’s post-verdict acquittal can be challenged by the government on appeal.
The civil equivalent is judgment as a matter of law. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a party can move for this judgment if a reasonable jury would lack a sufficient evidentiary basis to find in the opposing party’s favor.14Legal Information Institute. Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial The motion can be made before the case goes to the jury, and if denied, it can be renewed after an unfavorable verdict. This mechanism replaced what was historically known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV.15Legal Information Institute. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
What Happens After the Verdict
A guilty verdict does not lead to immediate sentencing. In federal court, sentencing typically occurs about 75 days later if the defendant is in custody, or about 90 days if they are out on bail. During that gap, a probation officer prepares a pre-sentence investigation report examining the defendant’s criminal history, personal background, and the circumstances of the offense.16United States Department of Justice. Sentencing The judge uses that report, along with applicable sentencing guidelines, to determine the penalty.
When a civil jury finds the defendant liable, the judge enters a formal judgment ordering payment of the damages the jury awarded. If the case involved a special verdict, the judge first applies the law to the jury’s factual findings before calculating the final judgment amount.
A not-guilty verdict ends the criminal case. The defendant is released from all obligations related to the charges, and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal or retry the case. In civil cases, a not-liable verdict similarly ends the plaintiff’s claim, though the finality is somewhat less absolute because certain post-trial motions remain available.
The losing party in a civil case can file a motion for a new trial within 28 days of the judgment. Grounds include errors in jury instructions, newly discovered evidence, or a verdict clearly against the weight of the evidence.17Legal Information Institute. Rule 59 New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment In criminal cases, a defendant convicted at trial can file a motion for a new trial or a motion for judgment of acquittal within 14 days.13Justia. Fed R Crim P 29 – Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal If these motions are denied, the losing party can pursue an appeal to a higher court, arguing that legal errors during the trial affected the outcome. Appeals do not re-examine the facts. They focus on whether the law was applied correctly.