A Hung Jury is a Sign that the Criminal Justice System is Working

If a jury in a criminal case cannot reach a unanimous verdict, that is not a failure of the system but a sign that the legal system is actually working. Prosecutors have the burden to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the government did not present such a strong enough case to convince 12 jurors of this unanimously, jurors should not compromise their beliefs and should not return a guilty verdict.

I've personally seen several juries that were at one point hung, and I think hung juries probably should happen more often than they do.

First, when I was in law school and working as a part-time reporter, I covered a drug trial where the defendant presented false alibi evidence that the government did not do much to rebut. One juror later told me that 11 jurors wanted to acquit, but one believed that the government had proven its case. On re-trial, the government did a much better job to discredit the alibi, and the defendant was convicted.

Second, I litigated a complicated health care fraud case which involved two trials, of which I was involved in the second. The first trial resulted in a split verdict, and I believe it was likely the result of a compromise verdict among the jurors. In the second trial, the jury indicated they were deadlocked, and then they acquitted my client of one count while being hung on the rest of the counts. The government ultimately dismissed all the remaining charges, and my client was cleared.

Third, I litigated a health care fraud and kickback case where the jury found my client guilty of the least serious charge and was hung on the most serious charge. I respectfully disagree with the verdict, especially since a juror disclosed significant misconduct by another juror, but I appreciated that the jurors considered the evidence and arguments.

And fourth, I litigated a health care fraud and kickback case where the jury was deadlocked for days but then came back with a full acquittal for both defendants. We lawyers were allowed to talk with the jurors afterwards, and I was impressed with how seriously they took their job and considered the evidence and arguments.

Personally, I believe that jurors should be told upfront what might happen if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Right now, most jurors probably don't know that if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict, they will eventually be released and the case could get retried in the future. Knowing this might help alleviate some of the pressures that I believe holdout jurors may feel to compromise.

(originally posted on LinkedIn in September 2026 at https://lnkd.in/p/gV3KCHcQ)