When can Jury Verdicts be Challenged or OverturnedA jury is all powerful, charged with the power to make factual determinations at trial without question. What a jury says goes, and at that place is no questioning the jury'south decisions. Correct?

Well, not e'er. Certainly, the integrity of our organisation depends on respecting a jury'due south decision. If anybody could come back after a trial and overturn what a jury does or decides, there would be no signal in having a jury system. Nosotros all accept that sometimes juries get things right and sometimes they get things wrong, but this is our system of justice.

There are times when the ultimate determination of a jury in an injury trial can be questioned, and even overturned. These are rare situations, but they practice happen. They usually involve either how the jury came to its decision, or whether the ultimate decision makes logical sense.

Compromise Verdicts

1 such situation is with what is known as a compromise jury or verdict. Although compromise and "give and take" is a great policy for business or in other areas of real life, with jurors, it is not allowed. We practise non want jurors negotiating to go to their resolution. Jurors are charged with making decisions based on what they believe the bear witness at trial proved, not deciding every bit a function of negotiation with other jurors.

Compromise is natural and homo, and it is not hard to imagine situations in which it happens. Imagine that yous are office of a jury panel. You lot accept been hearing a case for three or four days, and now information technology is fourth dimension to debate the bug. You are tired, have been out of work during jury duty, and you miss your family. But the case has concluded, and y'all have a job to do.

You go back into the jury room with the other jurors to come to a verdict. Everybody on the jury agrees on a verdict. All of you lot believe that there was no negligence, and you want to award the victim nothing. Except for one juror. That holdout juror is firm in his or her conviction that the defendant is, in fact, negligent, and that the victim should be awarded damages.

Yous are tired, then to appease this ane holdout jury, you offer to give the victim a small, nominal or piddling amount, say $1,000. The holdout juror is not happy, simply in that juror's eyes, at least the injured victim is getting "something," then the juror agrees. The verdict is entered for the victim for $1,000.

That result could be a compromise verdict because in fact, the verdict does not stand for the truly held beliefs of each member of the jury console. Most of the panel gave money when they did non want to, and the holdout voted for an laurels way less than what that juror felt the verdict should be.

Inconsistent Verdicts

Going hand in manus with compromise verdicts are inconsistent verdicts. Inconsistent verdicts are those that make no logical sense. Oft, they are a product of compromise.

For instance, a jury may say that a nursing abode is negligent for injuries to a resident, but award no damages. Or, the jury may say that a victim has been injured, but award no pain and suffering, or no allowance for futurity medical expenses when injuries are catastrophic.

These decisions brand no logical sense. A jury can say a defendant is not liable if it chooses. But in near cases, the jury cannot say a accused is liable, but not brand them pay any damages to an injured victim.

Sometimes verdicts are inconsistent because jurors only did non empathize the jury instructions. Sometimes, they are the result of jurors intentionally agreeing to ignore jury instructions, mistakenly believing that if they all agree to employ different rules, that it is OK to do so.

Other times, they are inconsistent because the jury compromised. For example, a juror may recollect a defendant has no liability, while the others practise. To compromise, they agree to say the defendant is liable, simply accolade no damages, to requite the victim and fellow jurors a moral victory, while at the aforementioned time, avoiding making the defendant pay any money, thus satisfying the jurors who thought the accused was not negligent.

Legal Inadequacy

These verdicts are frequently legally inadequate. Whenever a jury finds a defendant to be negligent, just awards no amercement for future medical expenses or past or future pain and suffering, a victim can fence that the verdict is inadequate and inconsistent.

Logic may tell y'all that while a compromise verdict may be inconsistent, a verdict can exist one or the other exclusively. In other words, a jury may come up with an entirely logical, sensible verdict, but practice then as the event of an improper compromise.

Besides, a jury may be unified and in full agreement, making their decision based on the evidence and without negotiation or compromise just end up application an corporeality that makes no sense, or which does not agree with the bear witness presented.

Differences are Important to Understand

It is important for attorneys to understand the departure between these, as they each have their own rules equally to when the motions tin can be made, and how to preserve the issues for appeal if the trial court does not agree with a political party'south movement for a new trial.

Ultimately, a court volition look to come across if a verdict is one that adduced in a logical manner, which could be made by reasonable people. The court will see if the corporeality awarded bears a reasonable relation to the damages.

Whatsoever indication that conjecture, speculation, prejudice, passion, or corruption will pb to verdicts being overturned and new trials being awarded if a party to an injury trial asks for this kind of relief.

Make sure y'all are being treated adequately in trial and that your rights to a fair jury are protected. Contact Brill & Rinaldi today about a free consultation to discuss your injury or accident trial.