Also known as: general verdicts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A jury verdict that reports only which party prevails without disclosing the jury's specific factual findings or reasoning.
Guillermo Guzman sued Gable Construction after a scaffold collapse. The court submitted a general verdict form together with written questions on breach and causation. The jury returned a general verdict for Guzman awarding damages and answered the questions consistently with that outcome.
Georgia Gibbs sued Granite Holdings for breach of a supply contract. The jury returned a general verdict for Gibbs and answered written questions confirming the contract existed and was breached. The court approved judgment on the verdict and answers under the applicable rule.
Guadalupe Gallegos sued Guardian Insurance after a denied claim. The jury returned a general verdict for Gallegos but answered written questions showing the policy excluded coverage. The court entered judgment according to the answers notwithstanding the general verdict.
Genevieve Gardner sued Grandview Holdings for unpaid wages. The jury returned a general verdict awarding Gardner damages. The clerk promptly entered judgment on the general verdict without awaiting further court direction.
Glenn Gross was tried on multiple substantive counts arising from a conspiracy. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty on several counts. The court imposed a single sentence that remained valid because any one good count supported the judgment.
Walter and Daniel Pinkerton are brothers who lived a short distance from each other on Daniel's farm. They were indicted for violations of the Internal Revenue Code. The indictment contained ten substantive counts and one conspiracy count. The jury found Walter guilty on nine of the substantive counts and on the conspiracy count. It found Daniel guilty on six of the substantive counts and on the conspiracy count. Walter was fined $500 and sentenced generally on the substantive counts to imprisonment for thirty months. On the conspiracy count he was given a two year sentence to run concurrently with the other sentence. Daniel was fined $1,000 and sentenced generally on the substantive counts to imprisonment for thirty months. On the conspiracy count he was fined $500 and given a two year sentence to run concurrently with the other sentence. The judgments of conviction were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because one of the questions presented involved a conflict between the decision below and United States v. Sall, decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A single conspiracy was charged and proved. Some of the overt acts charged in the conspiracy count were the same acts charged in the substantive counts. Each of the substantive offenses found was committed pursuant to the conspiracy. There is no evidence to show that Daniel participated directly in the commission of the substantive offenses on which his conviction has been sustained. There was evidence to show that these substantive offenses were in fact committed by Walter in furtherance of the unlawful agreement or conspiracy existing between the brothers. Daniel in fact was in the penitentiary, under sentence for other crimes, when some of Walter’s crimes were done. The indictment was filed after a prior one for conspiracy alone had been dismissed following reversal on appeal.
View caseGretchen Graham was charged with a narcotics offense based on either use or addiction. The jury returned a general verdict finding her guilty. The court upheld the conviction because the general verdict could rest on either ground presented to the jury.
Lawrence Robinson was tried and convicted by a jury in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles for violating a California statute that criminalizes being addicted to the use of narcotics. Two Los Angeles police officers provided the evidence against him at trial. Officer Brown testified that he examined Robinson's arms on a street in Los Angeles approximately four months before the trial and observed scar tissue, discoloration, numerous needle marks, and a scab on the inside of his arms. Brown further stated that Robinson admitted to occasional use of narcotics during questioning. Subsequently, Officer Lindquist examined Robinson the next morning in the Central Jail in Los Angeles. Lindquist observed discolorations and scabs on Robinson's arms and identified photographs taken shortly after the arrest. Drawing on more than ten years of experience in the Narcotic Division, Lindquist concluded that the marks resulted from hypodermic needle injections into non-sterile tissue and veins, with the scabs being several days old. He noted that Robinson was not under the influence of narcotics or experiencing withdrawal symptoms at the time. Robinson admitted past narcotic use. Robinson took the stand in his own defense and denied both the conversations with the police officers and any history of narcotic use or addiction. He explained the marks on his arms as the result of an allergic condition developed during military service. Two additional witnesses corroborated his testimony. The trial judge instructed the jury that the statute encompassed both the act of using narcotics and the status of being addicted to their use. Addiction is described as a chronic condition ascertainable from a single examination showing characteristic reactions. The jury could convict upon finding either use in Los Angeles County or addiction within the City of Los Angeles. It returned a general verdict of guilty against Robinson. An appeal followed to the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the highest state court available for review in this matter, which affirmed the conviction in an unreported opinion by reference to its prior decisions. The Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction to address the constitutional question presented by the statute as interpreted in this case.
View caseFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b)(1) authorizes the court to submit forms for a general verdict together with written questions on one or more issues of fact. The court must provide necessary instructions so the jury can render both the verdict and the answers.
Under Rule 49(b)(2) the court must approve an appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers for entry under Rule 58. The clerk may then enter the judgment promptly when the jury returns a general verdict.
Rule 49(b)(3) permits the court to enter judgment according to the answers notwithstanding the general verdict, direct the jury to deliberate further, or order a new trial when the answers are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the verdict.
A general verdict provides no insight into the jury's reasoning. If multiple theories were submitted and one rests on improper evidence or an erroneous instruction, an appellate court may have to reverse because it cannot determine the basis for the verdict.
…of the article." In answer to a special question, the jury found that the plaintiff had not proved actual malice, and a general verdict was returned for the defendant. On appeal the Supreme Court of Kansas, in an opinion by Justice Burch, reasoned as follows (78 Kan., at 724, 98 P., at 286): "It is of the utmost…