Hung jury

⭐ In the context of legal systems, a hung jury is most distinctly characteristic of which type of legal tradition?

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Hung jury

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

This situation can occur only in common law legal systems. Civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is immediately acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a singular, solemn vote.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

Hung jury in the context of Petit juries

In common law, a petit jury (or trial jury; pronounced /ˈpɛtət/ or /pəˈtt/, depending on the jurisdiction) hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases involving serious felonies there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases. However, the common law trial jury is the most common type of jury system.

In civil cases many trials require fewer than twelve jurors. Juries are almost never used in civil cases outside the United States and Canada. Other states with a common law tradition sometimes use them in defamation cases, in cases involving a governmental eminent domain power, and in cases involving alleged wrongful conviction. Civil law countries generally do not use civil juries. Civil juries are available in the United States and Canada in almost all cases where the only remedy sought is money damages.

↑ Return to Menu

Hung jury in the context of Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss (November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American government official who, in 1948, was accused of spying for the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The statute of limitations had expired for espionage, but he was convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950. Before the trial, Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, both as a U.S. State Department official and as a UN official. In later life, he worked as a lecturer and author.

On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party USA member, testified under subpoena before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that Hiss had secretly been a communist while in federal service. Hiss categorically denied the charge and subsequently sued Chambers for libel. During the pretrial discovery process of the libel case, Chambers produced new evidence allegedly indicating that he and Hiss had been involved in espionage. A federal grand jury indicted Hiss on two counts of perjury. After a mistrial due to a hung jury, Hiss was tried a second time, and in January 1950 he was found guilty and received two concurrent five-year sentences, of which he eventually served three and a half years.

↑ Return to Menu

Hung jury in the context of Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina

The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina were adopted on March 1, 1669 by the eight Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina, which included most of the land between what is now Virginia and Florida. It replaced the Charter of Carolina and the Concessions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina (1665). The date March 1, 1669, was the date that proprietors confirmed the Constitutions and sent them to the Colony, but later on two other versions were introduced in 1682 and in 1698. Moreover, the proprietors suspended the Constitutions in 1690. Despite the claims of proprietors on the valid version of the Constitution, the colonists officially recognized the July 21, 1669, version, claiming that six proprietors had sealed the Constitutions as "the unalterable form and rule of Government forever" on that date. The earliest draft of this version in manuscript is believed to be the one found at Columbia, South Carolina archives.

The Constitutions were "reactionary" and "experimented with a non-common law system designed to encourage a feudal social structure", including through the use of non-unanimous jury decisions for criminal convictions. Some scholars think that the Colonists, settlers, and the British Crown kept themselves at a distance to the Constitutions from the beginning; however, others argue that it was a legal document that drew on the King's earlier charter to the colony and reflected crucial legal realities. While the provisions of the Fundamental Constitutions were never fully employed nor ratified, the Constitutions did help to shape power in the Carolinas and especially land distribution. Colonists' main concerns over the document were its exaltation of proprietors as noblemen at the apex of the hierarchically designed society. Second, the Constitutions had rules that were hard to implement by settlers for practical reasons. Thus, the proprietors had to amend the rules five times. They were repealed in part after the revolution against James II—the Glorious Revolution—which also reflected a partial reaction against such principles; however, for eight proprietors and the king who were the authors of the "Fundamental Constitutions", it reflected the proper order of governance, or as they wrote, they were creating a government with lords so "that the government of this province may be made most agreeable to the monarchy under which we live and of which this province is a part; and that we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy."

↑ Return to Menu