Do Jury Verdicts Have To Be Unanimous? What You Need To Know
Explore when American juries must agree unanimously, when majority votes are allowed, and how the Supreme Court has shaped these rules.
Unanimous jury verdicts are widely associated with American trials, but the law draws careful lines about when every juror must agree and when a divided jury can still decide a case.
This article explains how unanimity works in modern U.S. law, the difference between criminal and civil cases, the Supreme Court decisions that reshaped the rules, and what can happen when juries cannot reach a unanimous decision.
Why Jury Unanimity Matters
The requirement that all jurors agree has been part of the traditional understanding of the jury trial right inherited from English common law. Unanimity is often defended on several grounds:
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt: In criminal cases, requiring every juror to be convinced of guilt helps enforce the high standard of proof the Constitution demands before a person can be punished.
- Thorough deliberation: When the verdict must be unanimous, majority jurors must seriously engage with the concerns of any holdouts, promoting deeper discussion.
- Legitimacy and public confidence: A verdict that reflects the considered judgment of the entire jury is often viewed as more legitimate and trustworthy.
- Protection of minority viewpoints: Unanimity helps ensure that a lone juror, or a small minority, cannot simply be overridden by a quick majority vote without meaningful debate.
These justifications are particularly powerful in criminal prosecutions, where the stakes include loss of liberty and, in some cases, life itself.
Unanimity in Criminal Cases
Under current Supreme Court doctrine, a criminal conviction for a non-petty offense in either federal or state court requires a unanimous jury verdict.
The Sixth Amendment and the Jury Right
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury in criminal prosecutions. For many years, the Supreme Court interpreted that guarantee to require unanimity in federal criminal trials, but not necessarily in state trials. That changed in 2020.
The Future of AI: Preventing a Big Tech Monopoly >
Key Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Unanimity
| Case | Year | Issue | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apodaca v. Oregon / Johnson v. Louisiana | 1972 | Could states allow convictions by less-than-unanimous juries? | Court narrowly upheld state laws allowing 10–2 or 9–3 guilty verdicts in some criminal cases, creating a split between federal and state rules. |
| Burch v. Louisiana | 1979 | Could a six-person jury convict by a 5–1 vote? | Court held that if a jury has only six members, any guilty verdict must be unanimous. |
| Ramos v. Louisiana | 2020 | Does the Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement apply to the states? | Court ruled that the Constitution requires unanimous guilty verdicts for serious offenses in both federal and state criminal trials, overturning the earlier approach. |
The Impact of Ramos v. Louisiana
Before Ramos, Oregon and Louisiana allowed some criminal convictions based on non-unanimous juries, even though 48 other states and the federal system required unanimity. In Ramos, the Supreme Court held that:
- The Sixth Amendment includes a right to a unanimous jury to convict a defendant of a serious (non-petty) offense.
- That right applies equally to federal and state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court emphasized that the unanimity rule is not a minor procedural detail but a fundamental component of the jury trial right in American criminal justice.
Retroactivity: What Happens to Old Non-Unanimous Verdicts?
After Ramos, many defendants convicted by non-unanimous juries sought to have their convictions set aside. The Supreme Court later addressed whether Ramos applied retroactively on federal collateral review and limited the relief available to many of those defendants.
As a result:
- New and pending cases must comply with the unanimity requirement.
- Relief for older, final convictions based on non-unanimous juries is restricted at the federal level, although individual states may choose to provide broader remedies.
Unanimity in Civil Jury Trials
The Constitution treats civil juries differently. The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in certain federal civil cases, but it does not explicitly require unanimous verdicts, and the Supreme Court has allowed more flexibility in the civil context.
Federal Civil Cases
In federal civil trials, the default rule is that the verdict should be unanimous unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court adopts a valid local rule that permits a less-than-unanimous decision.
Judicial policy bodies, such as the American Bar Association (ABA), recommend that civil juries strive for unanimity and that departures from unanimity be permitted only after substantial deliberations and with a strong majority of jurors in agreement.
State Civil Cases
States have broad authority to regulate civil jury procedures. Many states permit non-unanimous civil verdicts, especially in cases involving money damages rather than criminal punishment.
According to materials summarizing ABA principles on juries and jury trials:
- Roughly thirty states allow non-unanimous verdicts in at least some civil cases.
- The most common rule is that a verdict is valid if at least five-sixths of jurors agree (for example, 10 out of 12 jurors).
- These rules often require that the jury first deliberate for a meaningful period before abandoning the attempt to reach unanimity.
Policy Reasons for Non-Unanimous Civil Verdicts
Lawmakers and courts that permit civil majority verdicts typically cite different considerations than in criminal cases, including:
- Efficiency: Civil dockets are often crowded, and allowing majority verdicts can reduce mistrials and retrials.
- Lower stakes than criminal punishment: Although civil cases can involve very large financial consequences, they generally do not involve imprisonment.
- Compromise outcomes: Civil juries may be resolving complex disputes where some level of disagreement is expected; a strong supermajority is thought sufficient to justify a binding judgment.
How Jury Size Interacts With Unanimity
Unanimity is not the only variable. The Supreme Court has also examined how jury size interacts with verdict requirements.
In Burch v. Louisiana, the Court held that a six-person jury must be unanimous to convict in a criminal case. Although the Court has in some settings allowed juries smaller than twelve, it has drawn a line to ensure that small juries do not dilute the protections of the jury trial right.
What Happens When Jurors Cannot Agree?
When unanimity is required and jurors cannot reach a unanimous decision after reasonable deliberation, the result is often a hung jury. The legal consequences include:
- No verdict is entered: A hung jury is not an acquittal or a conviction; it is simply a failure to reach a decision.
- Possible retrial: Prosecutors may choose to retry the case before a new jury, subject to strategic and resource considerations.
- Plea negotiations: After a hung jury, parties sometimes reconsider settlement options (in civil cases) or plea agreements (in criminal cases).
In jurisdictions that permit non-unanimous civil verdicts, judges may sometimes instruct juries that if, after substantial effort, unanimity proves impossible, they may return a valid verdict with the required supermajority (for example, five-sixths of jurors) instead.
Waiving the Right to a Unanimous Verdict
In some settings, parties may waive the right to a unanimous verdict, particularly in civil cases or in criminal cases where local law permits it.
- Parties may agree in advance that a certain majority (such as 10 out of 12 jurors) will be sufficient for a verdict.
- Best-practice recommendations stress that any waiver should be clearly stated on the record, with the defendant personally informed of the consequences in criminal cases.
Even where such waivers are legally allowed, many judges and lawyers are cautious about them in criminal prosecutions, given the constitutional protection of unanimity recognized in Ramos and the role of the jury as a safeguard against unjust convictions.
Practical Takeaways for Defendants and Litigants
Anyone facing a jury trial should understand how unanimity rules may affect their case strategy. Some practical points include:
- Criminal defendants: In modern practice, you cannot be convicted of a non-petty offense in state or federal court without a unanimous jury verdict of guilt.
- Civil plaintiffs and defendants: The rules on civil unanimity vary by jurisdiction. In many states, a strong but not unanimous majority can decide the case.
- Negotiation and risk assessment: Knowing whether a single juror can prevent a verdict (as in unanimous systems) or whether a supermajority can still rule against you can influence settlement decisions.
- Jury instructions: Judges explain to jurors whether unanimity is required in that specific case, and jurors must follow those instructions.
Common Questions About Jury Unanimity
Does every jury decision in a criminal case have to be unanimous?
For serious criminal offenses tried by jury in federal and state courts, a guilty verdict must be unanimous. Some preliminary decisions, such as certain sentencing findings or recommendations, may follow different procedures depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case.
Are misdemeanor cases treated differently?
The Supreme Court’s modern unanimity rulings focus on non-petty offenses, generally those carrying more than six months of potential imprisonment. For very minor offenses, some jurisdictions use bench trials (without juries) or different procedures, but where a jury is used for a serious offense, unanimity is required.
Can a civil jury split 10–2 and still return a verdict?
In many states, yes—if state law allows a civil verdict based on a supermajority such as five-sixths of the jurors. In other states and in many federal cases, the parties must secure a unanimous verdict unless they have agreed in advance to a different rule.
If there is one holdout juror in a criminal case, can the judge pressure that juror?
Judges may encourage continued deliberations and remind jurors of their duty to consult with one another, but they cannot coerce any juror into surrendering an honest conviction solely to reach a verdict. If genuine unanimity cannot be reached, the result is typically a hung jury, not forced agreement.
Can the requirement of unanimity ever be changed by a simple statute?
In criminal cases, because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to require unanimous guilty verdicts for serious offenses, a legislature cannot simply pass a statute allowing non-unanimous convictions. Any such law would conflict with the constitutional interpretation in Ramos v. Louisiana. In civil cases, however, states have more freedom to structure their jury rules by statute or court rule.
References
- Principles for Juries and Jury Trials — American Bar Association. 2005-08-01. https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/aba-principles-juries-and-jury-trials-2005
- Unanimity of the Jury (Sixth Amendment) — U.S. Constitution Annotated, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. 2021-01-01. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/unanimity-of-the-jury
- Jury Size and Unanimity under the 6th and 14th Amendments — Douglas Linder, University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. 2019-01-01. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/jurysize.html
- Supreme Court Rules that Decision Requiring Unanimous Juries in Federal and State Criminal Trials Does Not Apply Retroactively — NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 2021-05-17. https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/supreme-court-rules-that-decision-requiring-unanimous-juries-in-federal-and-state-criminal-trials-does-not-apply-retroactively-to-cases-on-federal-collateral-review/
- The Unanimous Verdict: Politics and the Jury Trial — Steven P. Croley, Washington University Law Review. 1989-01-01. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol69/iss3/2/
- Amdt6.4.4.3 Unanimity of the Jury — Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov. 2020-04-20. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-4-3/ALDE_00013134/
- American Bar Association Principles for Juries and Jury Trials – Excerpt on Civil Jury Unanimity — Vermont Legislature (Legislative Counsel Memo). 2022-02-23. https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2022/WorkGroups/Senate%20Judiciary/Bills/S.178/Drafts,%20Amendments,%20and%20Legal%20Documents/S.178~Erik%20Fitzpatrick~American%20Bar%20Assiciation%20Principles%20for%20Juries%20and%20Jury%20Trials~2-23-2022.pdf
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
