The Single Holdout Juror

When a jury is required to come to a unanimous verdict, obviously, every member of the jury must agree on either “guilty” or “not guilty.” When the jury is not unanimous and deliberations have been going on for hours (or days) creates a deadlocked jury. When the jury is still deadlocked, a judge can actually order that jury to continue deliberating to reach a unanimous verdict called a “dynamite charge.” When one or two jurors are holding out, this requirement to continue deliberations or simply to have unanimous verdict puts coercive pressure on the jurors to change their vote, and many do. The pressure placed on a holdout juror is strongly influenced by group dynamics and typically, independent minded individuals that are strong enough to overcome the group dynamic pressures of the jury.

Hung juries are rare and a single holdout juror creating a hung jury is even more rare. Although states differ by year, about 6%-15% of juries hang, and of the juries that hang, 40% have one or two holdouts. In one analysis of hung juries, researchers found three features of felony jury trials that affect the likelihood of a hung jury: “(1) evidentiary characteristics of the case; (2) the interpersonal dynamics of deliberations; and (3) jurors opinions about the fairness of the law as applied during trial.” Studies have also shown that in a hung jury with a single holdout, all ended up breaking in favor of conviction.  The holdout shouldn’t be considered “’Idiosyncratic’ or irrational” because these same studies show that the deadlocks caused by holdouts involved a lot more dissenters sharing that same verdict as the holdout at the outset and these cases involved “genuine disagreement over the weight of the evidence.”

Being the minority of a group task is stressful in any situation, but the added pressure to come to a decision and the long deliberations compounds the jurors stress. There is a significant pressure to conform with the majority that can overwhelm a juror and most do not resist. Research has shown that those who have “tasted independence had greater possibilities for coping with the mounting pressure” and the holdout jurors: (1) have confidence in their perception/experience; (2) are independent and withdrawn and/or; (3) had doubts, but felt the need to push forward. Additionally, how the specific jury operates can affect individual judgment and these group dynamics “influence jurors to change their judgments” through the information exchanged among the jurors (informational influence) and jurors conforming to the desires of the other jurors (normative influence). Under the normative influence, group dynamics affect juror decision-making and produces stress through suppression of thoughts and ideas and the added pressure to comply with the majority. This can happen through assertive jurors who may intimidate those in a minority, a “rush to judgment” without considering other arguments or simply pressure to avoid a hung jury so they don’t have to serve as a juror longer than necessary.

Because of these pressures and the influence of group think, hung juries are not very common, especially hung juries with a one or two-person holdout. It takes an independent, strong, and steadfast person to overcome such pressures, and not all are willing to take that position in a jury setting.