A compromise verdict is a legal decision in which a jury weighs the evidence and delivers a resolution that is not a full endorsement of either side’s version of events. A compromise verdict is also referred to as a mixed verdict. It differs from the traditional concept of a verdict in that it seeks to deliver a compromise, or balance, between the differing versions of events. This type of verdict aims to offer a sense of compromise to both sides, rather than a clear-cut win or loss.
Examples of Compromise Verdicts
A common example of a compromise verdict is when a jury awards damages to both the plaintiff and the defendant, agreeing that the fault lies with both parties. The most common example in criminal cases is when a defendant is charged with a lesser crime than the one they were initially charged with. In civil cases, a compromise verdict might involve a plaintiff being compensated with an amount that falls between the amount requested and the amount offered by the defendant.
The Pros and Cons of a Compromise Verdict
A compromise verdict can be beneficial for both parties in that it can alleviate them from the fear of having to accept a final decision that may not be in their favor. It also allows the parties to come to a somewhat agreeable resolution without the risk of possible appeal or a lengthy trial. On the other hand, this type of verdict can also be confusing for juries as it does not always lend itself to a clear-cut verdict. Furthermore, it has the potential to be met with objections from either party in court, resulting in a delay in the delivery of judgment.