Definition
A verdict returned by a jury that is untrue — one that contradicts the evidence or is obviously opposed to the principles of right and justice. The term does not describe a verdict that is merely erroneous on a point of law; it refers to a factually wrong finding, whether the result of corruption, improper influence, or plain departure from the evidence presented.
Historically, the false verdict was the triggering condition for a writ of attaint — the ancient common-law mechanism by which a losing party could challenge a jury's finding, seek reversal of the resulting judgment, and expose the offending jurors to punishment.
Common Confusion
False verdict should not be confused with a verdict that is wrong as a matter of law. The historical remedy of attaint was expressly unavailable where the jury erred only on a legal question but followed the judge's directions. This distinction mattered enormously in practice: a jury that misapplied a legal standard was beyond the reach of attaint, while a jury that contradicted the facts was not. Modern appeals and new trial motions do not preserve this distinction with the same sharpness, but researchers reading historical sources should be alert to it.
Do not confuse false verdict with inconsistent verdict (logically contradictory findings on related counts) or with a general verdict subject to challenge on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds. These are related but distinct concepts.
Why It Matters in Research
The term is almost entirely historical in modern usage. Researchers encountering "false verdict" in pre-nineteenth-century materials are operating in the context of attaint procedure, which had its own pleading requirements, its own courts, and its own penalties. Understanding that attaint was the remedy — not a new trial, not an appeal — is essential to reading those sources accurately.
The procedural landscape shifted decisively in England with 6 George IV c. 50 (1825), which abolished the writ of attaint and formally transferred the corrective function to the practice of setting aside verdicts and granting new trials. American jurisdictions never adopted attaint, so the term "false verdict" appears in American sources primarily as a doctrinal relic borrowed from Blackstone and the English commentators, not as an operative procedural category.
Researchers using Law Mind corpus sources should note that the false verdict concept connects to the broader history of jury control — a thread running from attaint through new trial practice and into modern sufficiency review and juror misconduct doctrine. When tracing that thread, the Encyclopedia entry on Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, and Verdict provides useful orientation on how modern law handles the problem that attaint once addressed.
One navigational trap: Bouvier's framing — "obviously opposed to the principles of right and justice" — is a normative gloss, not a technical test. It reflects the moral register in which attaint was understood, but it should not be imported into modern research as a definition with operative legal force.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence are in close agreement on the core definition: a false verdict is an untrue verdict, and the historical remedy was attaint. The sources converge on the same statutory reference point (11 Henry VII c. 24) and the same procedural mechanism.
Rapalje & Lawrence adds a detail the other sources handle less precisely: attaint did not lie where the jury erred merely in point of law and found according to the judge's direction. This is a meaningful qualification. A jury that followed instructions but reached a factually wrong result could be attainted; a jury that misunderstood or misapplied a legal rule, acting on judicial guidance, could not. This limit on attaint's reach partly explains why the remedy was considered inadequate over time and why new trial practice developed alongside it.
Bouvier's situates the abolition of attaint within a broader narrative of criminal punishment for jurors — noting that a false verdict, whether caused by embracery (jury tampering) or not, was anciently treated as a criminal matter. This framing is useful context for researchers studying the relationship between jury integrity and criminal liability in early common law.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the American reception. None of the three sources notes that attaint was never transplanted to American courts, leaving the American researcher to infer the purely academic status of the term in domestic doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
The writ of attaint was an English procedural device and was abolished in England by statute in 1825. American courts never adopted attaint, and "false verdict" has no independent procedural significance in U.S. law. In American jurisdictions, the functional equivalent — challenging a factually unsupported verdict — is handled through motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and appellate sufficiency review.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, and Verdict — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia (criminal_211)