Verdict

In law, a verdict is the official finding of fact delivered by a jury on the issues a judge has put before them. When a trial is conducted by a judge alone—known as a bench trial—the judge’s final decision is called a finding, not a verdict. In England and Wales, coroners once issued verdicts, but since 2009 these have been renamed conclusions.

The word “verdict” comes from the Latin *veredictum*, meaning “to say the truth.” It entered English through Anglo-Norman as *verdit*, combining *ver* (“true,” from Latin *vērus*) and *dit* (“speech,” from Latin *dictum*).

In criminal law, the jury delivers a verdict of either “not guilty” or “guilty.” Different charges in the same case can produce different verdicts. A guilty verdict generally requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is usually followed by a judge’s judgment of conviction and then sentencing. In U.S. legal practice, the verdict is the jury’s finding on questions of fact; once the judge receives it, they enter a judgment on that verdict, which becomes the final order. A convicted defendant may appeal to the local Court of Appeals. Scotland once offered a third verdict, “not proven,” treated as an acquittal, but this was abolished in 2026.

A compromise verdict occurs when jurors give up their honest convictions on one issue in exchange for others abandoning their settled views on another issue, resulting in a verdict that does not have the full panel’s approval. Such verdicts are not allowed.

A directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge instructing the jury to return a specific verdict, typically issued when no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion. The judge may direct a verdict on the entire case or only on certain issues. In U.S. criminal cases, after the prosecution rests, the defendant may move for a directed verdict; if granted, the verdict is “not guilty.” The prosecution cannot seek a directed verdict of guilty because the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and have a jury (or judge, if the right to a jury is waived) determine guilt. In U.S. civil law, the directed verdict has largely been replaced by judgment as a matter of law. In England and Wales, the equivalent motion by the defence is called a motion of no case to answer; a judge may never direct a guilty verdict, as established in *R v Wang*.

A general verdict is a single conclusion by the jury on all issues: the jury finds the facts, applies the law as instructed, and returns one verdict that resolves the case. It is reported as, for example, “We the Jury find the issues for the plaintiff and assess his damages at one hundred thousand dollars.”

A sealed verdict is placed in a sealed envelope when there is a delay in announcing the result—for instance, while waiting for the judge, parties, and attorneys to return to court. The envelope is kept sealed until the court reconvenes and is then handed to the judge. This practice is nearly the default in many U.S. jurisdictions or may be the judge’s preference.

A special verdict is one in which the jury makes specific factual findings rather than (or in addition to) declaring guilt or liability. Jurors might, for example, write down a specific damages amount or a finding of proportionality alongside their ultimate decision. A special verdict form can ask the jury to answer directed questions about the required elements of a cause of action or to break down damages by category (economic, non-economic, loss of consortium, etc.). 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.” Special verdicts aim to focus the jury on key questions. A special verdict was forced in the 1884 case *R v. Dudley and Stephens*, which established that necessity is not a defence to murder, though such verdicts are generally recommended only in exceptional cases. Justices Black and Douglas disapproved of special verdicts even in civil cases, noting the jury’s historic role of tempering law with common sense.