1. Majority Verdict

2. What is a Majority Verdict?
Majority verdicts are defined differently in each of the states (QLD doesn’t have a majority verdict vote)
A minimum number of jurors (9, 10 or 11 jurors depending on the jurisdiction) are required to be in agreement after deliberating for a certain length of time (at least 2 hours, but longer in some jurisdictions)

3. What are the benefits? A reduction in the number of hung juries
Reaching a verdict in the initial trial means that the matter does not have to be retried:
thus saving court time and money
witnesses do not have go through the process again

4. What are the benefits?
Less problems created by “rogue” jurors “Rogue” juror: someone who enters the jury room having prejudged the verdict, and stubbornly refuses to participate in the debate or listen to the evidence or the views of the other jurors.”

5. What are the benefits?
There is less chance of a juror being bribed or intimidated
Reduce the chances of jurors being bribed or intimidated because it would be necessary to bribe or intimidate more than one juror to affect the jury’s verdict
This would be more difficult and increase the risk of detection

6. What are the benefits? Compromise verdicts may be avoided
If a unanimous verdict is required, it is possible that some jurors may acquiesce to the majority position but not be convinced of its correctness

7. Real life examples...
Recent discussion on majority verdict vs unanimous jury

8. Something to think about...
What would have happened to the defendant if the majority verdict ruling was allowed in Twelve Angry Men?
Were there any “rogue” jurors?
Could any of the jurors have been bribed or intimidated? What is it about their personality that makes them susceptible?
Which jurors do you think may have agreed to a “not guilty” charge might not have been totally convinced? Give some evidence to demonstrate your answer.