Is it time to end unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials?

[AviatorTom]

In the United States and many other countries, with few exceptions, a unanimous decision by the jury is required in criminal cases.

That is often difficult to get. MA vs Clancy trial is an example of that. As of 1 September 2026, that 12-person jury has deliberated for more than 19 hours without being able to reach a unanimous verdict. A hung jury is definitely not what the justice system wants. It may or may not result in a retrial, with potentially the same result.

Just think how difficult it is to get any group of people to agree on something, let alone 12 jurors in a high-profile complicated trial.

Is it time to consider changing the unanimous requirement for criminal trials?

Please vote in the poll, which lists some possible alternatives, assuming a typical 12-person jury.

Note that, in some civil cases, only a majority of the 6-person jury is required.

UNANIMOUS - all 12 jurors must agree (existing requirement)

SUPER-MAJORITY - at least 9 of the 12 jurors (75%) must agree

SIMPLE MAJORITY - at least 7 of the 12 jurors (>50%) must agree

JUDGE DECIDES - if the jury cannot be unanimous, then the judge decides

Something ELSE, please tell

A total of 36 votes were cast: 10 girls and 26 guys. See detailed results

[Anonymous]

Yes please! I had jury duty and the victim didn't act the usual way a person acts when they see someone with a gun, so 2 of the jury members weren't convinced that he used a gun on her
The rest of us kept telling them to look at the video.
We went frame by frame and screen shot the difference between his finger pointed at her and the gun pointed at her
Then one of them switched it up and said It could of been a cellphone
A cellphone ain't shaped like that
They made us stay extra hours and
gave in, but still stuck beside their arguments that the victim didn't act correctly
And also during the talk one of them had jury before and convicted someone wrongly so she really didn't want to say guilty. That was an eye opener because she was about to let a man get away with abusing the victim because of her own guilt and because the victim fought back instead of running away or begging. And the other person was willing to make up objects because the picture wasn't in HD.

[strateguy632]

those are crazy reasons. i did jury duty too. i won't say details but once i said guilty but we were not unanimous so innocent. a different time i was the one that said 'the accused did not confess rape.' so they argued 'you don't need a confession' and that WAS the official rule. DONT need confession. but still that is a dumb rule so i saved him.
maybe he was guilty but still need to prove she said no.

[Smegskull]

"Act correctly" meaning "Act like I would (or fantasise that I would)." or "Act like in the movies" right...

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, she was supposed to run away scream and hide or back up and beg
Instead, she fought back and came outside to confront him again

[Opinion Owner]

I had my own personal experience
A murder parked his car in our driveway after killing someone across the street
He was still in our driveway when my grandma ran outside and yelled, "Don't worry, we're calling the police "
We ran and dragged her back inside
I used that as an example that not everyone's thinks straight in critical moments

[purplepoppy]

I'm going to agree here. I've never done jury duty myself but heard enough horror stories from those who have. What's often clear is there's usually people on the jury who lack the intelligence to understand what's going on and no shortage of people who bully others into agreeing with them.

You've only got to look at attitudes to rape on this site to believe it would only take one guy not to believe the evidence because he saw a meme on Facebook. Like it or not people are biased.

Personally I think it should be a job with trained staff, particularly in complex cases. Law schools churn out huge numbers that never find work as lawyers, it would be a good job for them.

[KostasKouvalis]

You have that bullshit in the UK too? I thought it was only an American thing. And YES! I agree, 100%
Read my answer

[purplepoppy]

In the UK an unanimous decision is preferred but a judge can accept a majority verdict under certain circumstances and if he's in the right mood

[KostasKouvalis]

I meant making random citizens serve on the jury. I thought this was only an American thing. But what you said is cool too. But sometimes the judge makes a decision based on his own principles. I remember reading a story about a nursing student who stabbed her boyfriend, and the judge dropped the charges because he didn't wanna ruin her future.

But my favorite was the judge in Italy, who let two Peruvian rapists go, on the grounds that the girl was too ugly to get raped.

[Smegskull]

We have AI now. A trained AI can do the job.

[KostasKouvalis]

Great idea

[ArrowheadSW]

I still think that it needs to be unanimous. Sometimes that last holdout can bring something to light that the others overlooked. It helps prevent a rushed decision. The last jury that I was on, 11 of us voted guilty on the 2nd day of deliberations. The one holdout was being stubborn and wanted testimony read back. Took another day and a half to convince her. She ultimately voted guilty also, but it was a more firm decision for the jury as a whole. I ran into the holdout juror a couple of weeks later and she said that she was "finally able to sleep nights". I guess the whole process was very hard on her.

[ArrowheadSW]

The Clancy case is a difficult one in that the jurors have to choose one category out of five, and be unanimous on that choice. The choices are: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility, or Not Guilty. I think this is likely where the hangup is. It is difficult to get 12 jurors to agree on only one.

[ArrowheadSW]

It will be interesting to see if they retry the case, or if they plea bargain, if the jury is hung.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I want peer juries banned constitutionally. I want rape and murder trials to be done with a panel of 3 judges and the 3 judges decide your guilt or innocence.

[AviatorTom]

@SeekerOfTruth007 Do you realize that, in the US, would require an amendment to the US Constitution to fundamentally change, or delete, the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Yes, I do realize that. The founding fathers were not perfect, and did not claim to be perfect, which is why the Constitution has an amendment process in the first place.

[strateguy632]

because all those things the bad British did NOT have.
people think a rapist should be treated worse but without all this he is not yet a rapist.
you can't assume guilt and try to quickly prove it.
my dumb parents said he is a rapist because his dna was on her clothes.
but she probably gave permission.

[OlderAndWiser]

In Florida, criminal trials are conducted with a 6 person jury, except for cases in which the death penalty could potentially be imposed.

[AviatorTom]

@OlderAndWiser I didn't know that. Good to know. It makes sense to have 12 jurors for capital trials and 6 jurors for non-capital trials. I wish other states would adopt that.

[OlderAndWiser]

The only other instance in which you get a 12 person jury in Florida is eminent domain, in which the government is taking your property and the jury decides how much the government must pay.

[FreyaRed]

Jury trials are weird system anyway. Judge is the person who has to take responsibility for sentence and guilt finding.
Vocation of few house wives who look daily soap operas for judging about someone's life is like letting a coal miner perform a brain surgery, inclusive giving those people responsibility they aren't accustomed too.
This might sound great in simple milk maid calculation. ... " The people judge about individual who did something wrong"... but such trails have affect entire justice and following sentences. Additionally in today's ideology, social and media pressure influenced society. it's very easy to manipulate those individuals who never dealt with such pressure before.

[RavVid]

Juries give the possibility of "not guilty if he returns the sheep" verdicts. In the Clancy trial jurors would have to have some sympathy for Lindsay Clancey regardless of what verdict they were oriented to make.

Some here may have heard of Lindy Chamberlain who HAD to be guilty of her baby's death because of "The Dingo Was Innocent" politics. A chance discovery of the baby's clothes by a dingo's lair led to her pardon years into her sentence.

In terms of Clancy, any judgement has to be difficult and flawed whether it is a jury or not. The difficulty of the jury reaching a decision is a good argument for juries and the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Juries shouldn't exist to begin with.

A judge needs to pass the bar exam to work in a court of law so do the other lawyers working the case and you mean to tell me a random who is only registered to vote gets to decide who is innocent or guilty when he or she most likely doesn't understand how evidence works nor the court system.

Makes no sense.

The correct way is there should be 3 judges and all 3 have to agree or disagree on guilt or innocence and state their reasons why the defendant is guilty or innocent.

[darkcloud1945]

Would you accept a judge's verdict if you were arrested for murder? One person who might have been bought off by an unknown. Or a jury of 12 with all their foibles. Which one would you want: one or twelve?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@darkcloud1945 : I said 3 judges. Not 1.

[Smegskull]

The quality of evidence these days can range from absolute perfection to nothing. The issue is that a jury doesn't change its weighted consideration of statements vs evidence at the same rate as the evidence quality.
Maybe if a certain level of evidence can be provided it should just bypass the jury all together or the jury options should change from guilty/not guilty to how guilty X/10?
Personaly I would like to see the whole system replace with computers, either algorithms or AI. No sympathy, no appealing to emotion, no gender bias, just cold hard ruthless implementation of the law as written. If we have problems with how that works, we just vote for changes to the law, correcting things at the source.

[ProbablyClueless]

Absolutely not. Unanimous jury trials need to stay.

That said, we should probably write a rule that allows for some kind of intervention during times when dumb-shittery be afoot.

I would call it the "quacks like a duck" Rule. Reserved only for times when the weight of the evidence goes so clearly in one direction, but one or two of jurors are still bleating "YEH BHUT MUH FEELZ" like a seal with special needs.

[KostasKouvalis]

YES! OMG, YESSSSSSSSS

One of my teachers was on a jury. She told us how the guy had weapons charges. Everyone voted "Guilty", except one guy. The guy was stubborn and wouldn't budge. The teacher said the other 11 changed their vote to "Not Guilty", just so they could go home, even though the guy was guilty. Unanimous system is flawed.

[darkcloud1945]

Any system can be flawed in the same way. Then we hope a jury gets the best people to serve. Not professional jury people, who volunteers who serve on a local or grand jury

[KostasKouvalis]

They should pay more than $20 a day then

[darkcloud1945]

Then, like everyone else, go on strike and protest, overturn cars, take over schools, police stations, and hold up traffic, demanding higher pay for jury duty instead of complaining. Start petitions, etc., and do something besides complain if you are not willing to accept $20 for jury duty

[KostasKouvalis]

GREAT IDEA! But I'd rather protest to abolish forced jury duty entirely. I don't know why no one says it violates the 13 ammendment about involuntary servitude

[gasman70]

the problem is this, you do that, then you start to place more actual innocent people in prison. This sounds like a nifty idea until it happened to you and you didn't do it and you're hope is within the 12 jurors that have your life in your hands, and the hope that one of them sees the story for what it is, a lie.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Everything else in this country is based on majority. Why a criminal can get off because of the minority is baffling to me.

I could see unanimous being required for death penalty though. Like the death penalty not even mentioned unless all jurors agree.

[strateguy632]

well you need to know history. before u. s. just the judge decided guilt but that looked bad because people did not trust those tricky lawyers and judges.
so we made it a 'jury of peers' regular people hear the proofs. the judge only decided how much punishment but can't punish unless everyone is convinced.
of course if people are rioting and threaten jury then o. j. is not guilty.

[molonski2]

Should stay where it is , you have already had a plethora of wrongful convictions , changing this would make it worse , that's the system.

[strateguy632]

If it was beyond a reasonable doubt then people would agree. So it must be unanimous all 12. Not by a judge.

[jshm2]

The jury is not always right regardless. Hence the appeal process.

So it doesn't really matter.

[_Jenny_]

@AviatorTom Let’s make it Unanimous, we all know that she is culpable of killing her children.

[NathanDavis]

it solves nothing...

it makes it worst

[exitseven]

simple majoruty. the fact the perp has gotten this far through the system means he is guilty anyway

[msc545]

I want to keep it unanimous. It's just too easy for some people to get together as a sort of lynch mob otherwise.

[ArrowheadSW]

Exactly. I've been on several juries over the years. Although I've never seen a lynch mod mentality on any of the juries that I've been on, I can certainly see it happening.

[MikeMetal79]

I’m against the death penalty, or at least I am openly. If it were me, they’d become lab rats. This way, if a virus comes along, they have people to test it on. In the words of Ivan Drago, if he dies, he dies.

[Cidknee]

I swe no reason for 100%. Simple or super works for me. Perhaps it should be more than simple. Either 8 or 9 would suffice.

[MrChinaski]

It's meant to be hard. That's a feature, not a bug. Have a heart, bro.

[Iron_Man]

Welk they found Tupac the guy that put a hit On Tupac back in the 1990s hit man guilty just recently

[Iron_Man]

The woman is mentally ill. It doesn’t matter she still did it so why should she sit in a soft little mental institution where it’s soft and she can eat cookies with people like Poppi when she should go to a hard-core prison

[Paige2006]

Not for criminal trials