View source for Verdict

{{short description|Formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to it by the judge}}
{{About|the legal finding of fact|other uses|Verdict (disambiguation)}}
[[File:Waiting for the Verdict by Abraham Solomon, 1859, Getty Center.JPG|thumb|''Waiting for the Verdict'', [[Abraham Solomon]], 1859|260px]]
{{Criminal procedure (trial)}}

In [[law]], a '''verdict''' is the formal [[trier of fact|finding]] of fact made by a [[jury]] on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a [[judge]].<ref>(see [[Black's Law Dictionary]], p.&nbsp;1398 (5th ed. 1979)</ref> In a [[bench trial]], the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.greghillassociates.com/should-i-waive-a-jury-trial-and-instead-have-a-bench-trial.html |title=Should I Waive a Jury Trial and Instead Have a Bench Trial? |publisher=Greg Hill & Associates |access-date=October 4, 2016 }}</ref> In [[England and Wales]], a [[coroner]]'s findings used to be called verdicts but are, since 2009, called conclusions (see {{slink|Coroner|Inquest conclusions (previously called verdicts)}}).

[[File:A verdict about murder. Terracotta tablet from Girsu, Iraq. 2112-2004 BCE. Ancient Orient Museum, Istanbul.jpg|thumb|A verdict about murder. Terracotta tablet from Girsu, Iraq. 2112–2004 BCE. Ancient Orient Museum, Istanbul]]

==Etymology==
The term "verdict", from the Latin ''veredictum'', literally means "to say the truth" and is derived from [[Middle English]] ''verdit'', from [[Anglo-Norman language|Anglo-Norman]]: a compound of ''ver'' ("true", from the [[Latin]] ''vērus'') and ''dit'' ("speech", from the Latin ''dictum'', the [[Grammatical gender|neuter]] past participle of ''dīcere'', to say).

==Criminal law==
{{Further|Criminal law}}
In a [[Criminal law|criminal case]], the verdict, either "not guilty" or "guilty"—except in [[Scotland]] where the verdict of "[[not proven]]" is also available—is handed down by the jury. Different counts in the same case may have different verdicts.

A verdict of guilty in a criminal case generally requires evidence to be tested and true [[beyond reasonable doubt]]<ref>[https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-35819 HG Legal:What Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?]</ref> and is normally followed by a [[Judgment (law)|judgment]] of conviction rendered by judge, which in turn be followed by [[Sentence (law)|sentencing]].

In U.S. legal nomenclature, the verdict is the jury's finding on the questions of fact submitted to it. Once the court (the judge) receives the verdict, the judge enters judgment on the verdict. The judgment of the court is the final order in the case. If the defendant is found guilty, they can choose to [[appeal]] the case to the local Court of Appeals.

==Compromise verdict==
A compromise verdict is a "verdict which is reached only by the surrender of conscientious convictions upon one material issue by some jurors in return for a relinquishment by others of their like settled opinion upon another issue, and the result does not command the approval of the whole panel", and, as such, is not permitted.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=505622980049823997&q=%22947+A.2d+261%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 |title=Monti v. Wenkert, 947 A. 2d 261—Conn: Supreme Court 2008 |date=May 27, 2008 |publisher=Supreme Court of Connecticut |access-date=29 November 2010}}</ref>

==Directed verdict==
In a [[jury trial]], a '''directed verdict''' is an order from the presiding [[judge]] to the [[jury]] to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could decide to the contrary. After a directed verdict, the jury no longer needs to decide the [[Legal case|case]].

A judge may order a directed verdict on an entire case or only on specific issues.

In a [[criminal case]] in the [[United States]], once the prosecution has closed its case, the defendant may move for a directed verdict.<ref name="abasteps">{{cite web|title=Steps in a Trial – Motion for Directed Verdict/Dismissal|url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motiondismiss.html|website=American Bar Association|access-date=18 July 2017}}</ref>  If granted, the verdict will be "not guilty".<ref name="abasteps"/>  The prosecution may never seek a directed verdict of guilty, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and rebut the prosecution's case and have a jury determine guilt or innocence (where a defendant has waived their right to a jury trial and allowed the judge to render the verdict, this still applies).

In the American civil legal system, the concept of directed verdict has largely been replaced by [[judgment as a matter of law]].

In England and Wales, the equivalent motion, likewise made by the defence after the prosecution rests, is known as a motion of '''[[no case to answer]]'''. The judge may not direct a verdict of guilty under any circumstances: see ''[[R v Wang]]''.

==General verdict==
A general verdict is when the jury makes a complete finding and a single conclusion on all issues presented. First, the jury finds the facts, as proved by the evidence, then applies the law as instructed by the court, and finally, it returns a verdict in one conclusion that settles the case. Such verdict is reported as follows:

{{blockquote|We the Jury find the issues for the plaintiff (or defendant, as the case may be) and assess his damages at one hundred thousand dollars.}}

==Sealed verdict==
A sealed verdict is put into a sealed envelope when there is a delay in announcing the result, such as waiting for the judge, the parties, and the attorneys to return to court. The verdict is kept in a sealed envelope until the court reconvenes and then handed to the judge.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sealed Verdict Law and Definition|url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sealed-verdict/|access-date=2 May 2011}}</ref> This practice is virtually the default in many U.S. jurisdictions or may be the preference of the judge involved.

==Special verdict==
In [[English law]], a '''special verdict''' is a verdict by a [[jury (England and Wales)|jury]] that makes specific factual conclusions rather than (or in addition to) the jury's declaration of guilt or liability.   For example, jurors may write down a specific monetary amount of damages or a finding of proportionality in addition to the jury's ultimate finding of liability. A special jury verdict form may be used to have the jury answer directed questions as to the required elements for a cause of action or special issues and to demarcate monetary awards of damages by economic and non-economic damages, beneficiary, and specific categories of damages (lost earning capacity, funeral expenses, [[loss of consortium]], [[pain and suffering]], etc.).<ref>{{cite web|title=DiDomenico v. Terry Witt, M.D. – Jury Verdict Form |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/413190000/DiDomenico-v-Terry-Witt-M-D-Jury-Verdict-Form |website=Scribd|access-date=17 June 2019}}</ref> In the words of [[William Blackstone]], "The jury state the naked facts, as they find them to be proved, and pray the advice of the court thereon".<ref>''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'' (14th ed.) '''3''' 377</ref> Special verdicts are intended to focus the jury's attention on the important questions at hand.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Trial Management and Jury Control in Antitrust Cases|author=Grady, John F.|journal=Antitrust Law Journal|date=9 August 1982|volume=51|number=2|pages=249–260}}</ref>

The judge forced a special verdict in the famous 1884 case of ''[[R v. Dudley and Stephens]]'', which established a precedent that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder but, generally, it is recommended that such verdicts should only be returned in the most exceptional cases.<ref>''R v. Bourne'' (1952) 36 Cr App Rep 125 at 127, CCA, ''per'' [[Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard|Lord Goddard CJ]]</ref><ref>''R v. Agbim'' [1979] Crim LR 171, CA</ref>

The jury has a historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason, Justices [[Hugo Black|Black]] and [[William O. Douglas|Douglas]] indicated their disapproval of special verdicts even in civil cases.<ref>{{cite court|vol=416|reporter=F.2d|opinion=165|date=July 11, 1969|court=1st Cir.|litigants=U.S. v. Spock|url=http://openjurist.org/416/f2d/165/united-states-v-spock}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Virtual jury research]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|Verdict}}
{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Verdict}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Legal terminology]]