Suppose there is a hypothetical situation in which a person on a jury becomes infatuated with a criminal defendant. Suppose they make this explicitly clear during jury deliberations. For example, let's say it's a male juror and he says "she is too hot to go to jail even though she is clearly guilty, so I am voting 'not guilty.'"

Let's say the same juror persistently keeps voting "no" when the jury tries to decide if they should convict or not. Is there a process for the juror's opinion, that "she is clearly guilty," to be counted as the opinion they expressed, instead of their vote?

I've never served on a jury, so I don't know. Maybe it's more appropriate to ask if there is even a vote? Or do the jurors only need to express their opinion (of guilt/innocence) during the deliberations?


1 Answer 1


When the required number of jurors vote "yes" (or "no", or whatever the question is), then the jury has reached a verdict. There is no provision whereby the presiding juror can re-interpret "yes" as "no". In the case you describe, if a unanimous verdict is required that despite a reasonable inference that the last juror believes the defendant to be guilty, he has voted not guilty so the jury has not reached a verdict.

In case the guy in charge decides "In this case no means yes", thus falsely presents a supposed unanimous verdict, there is still an option for juror polling, in which case the not-guilty juror gets a chance to affirm his not guilty vote; though one of the parties has to request jury polling. If during polling the juror's response is not a clear "yes", then it could be more complicated.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.