What exactly is a hung jury?
Most criminal cases in the United States require a unanimous verdict . That means all twelve jurors have to agree on whether the defendant is guilty delete word guilty. If even one person holds out and refuses to budge, the jury can't reach a decision. This is what we call a "deadlocked" or hung jury .
It's a frustrating situation for everyone involved. The lawyers have spent weeks presenting evidence, the judge has overseen every detail, and the witnesses have bared their souls on the stand. But if the jury stays in that room for the and eventually tells the judge, "Look, we're never likely to agree, " the trial can't go forward.
Usually, when a jury says they're stuck, the judge doesn't just let them go right away. They'll often give what's called an "Allen charge, " which is basically a pep talk (or a bit of a nudge) telling the jurors to return in there, keep a mind, and try one more time to reach a consensus. If they still can't do it there after, the judge does not have any choice but to declare the jury "hung. "
So, what is a mistrial then?
While a hung jury is about a disagreement among the jurors, a mistrial is a much broader category. It basically means the trial has been terminated before a verdict is reached because of some kind of fundamental error or problem which makes the proceeding unfair.
Think of a mistrial as a "legal do-over. " If something happens that taints the jury or breaks the rules from the court so badly that a fair trial is no longer possible, the judge has to pull the plug. A hung jury is actually one of the most common reasons for a mistrial, but it's far from the only one.
A judge might declare a mistrial for all sorts of weird or dramatic reasons. Maybe a lawyer accidentally mentions evidence which was supposed to be kept secret. Maybe a juror gets caught doing their own "detective work" on Google when they were told specifically never to. Sometimes, it's even weirder—like a key witness disappearing or a death in the family of one of the main players in the case.
The big overlap: All squares are rectangles
The easiest way to comprehend the difference between a mistrial and a hung jury is to realize that a hung jury is a subset of a mistrial.
If a jury is hung, the judge must declare a mistrial. However, if a judge declares a mistrial because a lawyer made an illegal comment during opening statements, that has nothing to do with a hung jury because the jury hadn't even started deliberating yet.
Basically: * Every hung jury results in a mistrial. * Not every mistrial is caused by a hung jury.
It's a bit of a "squares and rectangles" situation. Just like every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square, every deadlocked jury results in a mistrial, but many mistrials happen for reasons which have nothing to do with the jurors' opinions.
Why do mistrials happen (besides hung juries)?
Since we know a hung jury is just a stalemate in the deliberation room, it's worth looking at the other "oops" moments that result in a mistrial. These usually involve some type of procedural error or misconduct .
For instance, "juror misconduct" is a big one. Jurors are human, and sometimes they do things they aren't supposed to. If a juror goes home and starts posting about the trial on social media, or if they talk to a family member about their opinion on the case before the trial has ended, the whole thing could be thrown out. The idea is that once a juror's mind is "poisoned" by outside information, they can't be impartial anymore.
Then there's "attorney misconduct. " This is the stuff of movies. If a prosecutor makes a comment regarding the defendant's right to remain silent—which is a big no-no—it can trigger an immediate mistrial. Or, if a lawyer brings up a defendant's past criminal history when the judge specifically ruled they couldn't, the fairness from the trial is compromised.
Does a mistrial mean the defendant goes free?
This is probably the biggest misconception out there. People often hear "mistrial" and think the defendant just gets to go out the front door a free person. That's rarely the case.
When a mistrial happens—whether it's because of a hung jury or a procedural error—it's like the trial never happened. The "Double Jeopardy" clause of the Constitution usually doesn't apply here. Double jeopardy prevents someone from being tried twice for the same crime after they've been acquitted or convicted. But since a mistrial means there was no verdict , the slate is wiped clean.
The prosecution usually has three choices after a mistrial: 1. Retrial: They start the whole process over with a brand-new jury. 2. Plea deal: They provide the defendant a deal to avoid the price and stress of a second trial. 3. Dismissal: They decide the situation isn't worth pursuing again and drop the charges.
Most of the time, especially in high-profile cases, the state should go for a retrial. It's expensive and exhausting, but a mistrial isn't a "get out of jail free" card.
Why the distinction matters for the defense and prosecution
The difference between a mistrial and a hung jury can actually change the technique for both sides. If a trial ends in a mistrial because of a hung jury, the lawyers usually get to talk to the jurors afterward. They'll ask, "What was the split? Was it 11 to 1 for guilty, or 10 to 2 because of not guilty? "
If the prosecution hears that 11 out of 12 jurors wanted to convict, they'll be very confident about going to a second trial. They'll figure they just need to tweak their argument slightly to win over that last person the next time.
On the other hand, if the mistrial was caused by a legal error—like a witness saying something they shouldn't have—it doesn't tell the lawyers anything about what the jury was thinking. It's a total wildcard. In those cases, the prosecution might be more nervous about trying the case again because they don't know if their evidence was actually landing.
A messy part of the legal system
At the end of the day, both mistrials and hung juries represent a "failure" of the system to reach a conclusion. They're incredibly common, but they're also a sign how the system is trying to protect the idea of a fair trial .
If we didn't have mistrials, we'd be stuck with verdicts reached by biased jurors or trials where lawyers cheated to win. And whenever we didn't have hung juries, we might force jurors to agree just to get it over with, which would result in a lot of innocent people being delivered to prison or guilty people walking free just because the jury was tired of arguing.
So, while the difference between a mistrial and a hung jury may appear like a little bit of a "lawyer-y" distinction, it's actually a pretty important safeguard. It ensures that if a trial isn't done perfectly, or if a decision isn't reached unanimously, we stop and try again instead of settling for an unfair result. It's not always efficient, and it's definitely not always fast, but it's the way the gears of justice keep turning.