Definition
A general verdict is the standard form of jury verdict in which the jury finds wholly for one party or the other without specifying the factual or legal basis for its decision. In a civil case, the jury returns a verdict "for the plaintiff" or "for the defendant." In a criminal case, the jury returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty." The general verdict resolves the case at the highest level of generality — who wins — while leaving the reasoning entirely implicit.
The general verdict is the default form of verdict in both civil and criminal proceedings. Unless a court orders a special verdict or submits specific interrogatories to the jury, the general verdict is what juries return.
Common Confusion
General verdict vs. special verdict: A special verdict requires the jury to answer specific factual questions, leaving the court to apply law to those findings and enter judgment. A general verdict asks the jury to do it all — find the facts, apply the law, and declare a winner — in a single pronouncement. The distinction matters because a general verdict is largely unreviewable on factual grounds; an appellate court cannot know which facts the jury found or which legal theory it relied upon. A special verdict, by contrast, exposes the jury's reasoning to scrutiny.
General verdict with interrogatories: Some jurisdictions allow a hybrid form — a general verdict accompanied by answers to written interrogatories. This is neither a pure general verdict nor a special verdict. If the interrogatory answers are inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may have authority to enter judgment on the interrogatories, order a new trial, or take other corrective action. Researchers should not treat this hybrid as equivalent to either pure form.
Core Elements
A valid general verdict typically requires:
1. A jury properly constituted and sworn
2. Deliberation on all issues submitted
3. A finding in favor of one party on each claim or count submitted (a single verdict on multiple counts may or may not be possible depending on jurisdiction and how the case was submitted)
4. Unanimity, or the degree of agreement required by the applicable procedural rules (varies by jurisdiction and case type)
5. Return of the verdict in open court and entry on the record
Why It Matters in Research
The general verdict's opacity is its most important research characteristic. Because the jury states only who wins, a general verdict provides no window into which legal theory succeeded, which factual disputes were resolved, or how damages were calculated. This creates several research traps.
First, when a case is submitted on multiple theories and the jury returns a general verdict, it is often impossible to determine which theory carried the day. This matters enormously for issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) analysis: courts have long struggled with whether a general verdict on multiple theories actually establishes any particular factual finding for purposes of later litigation.
Second, appellate review of general verdicts is narrow. Without a factual record of the jury's reasoning, appellate courts applying sufficiency-of-the-evidence review must ask only whether any reasonable jury could have found for the prevailing party — not what this jury actually found. Researchers tracing the appellate history of a case should account for how this standard compresses review.
Third, in criminal cases, the general verdict of "not guilty" is constitutionally protected from reexamination by double jeopardy principles. A jury can acquit for any reason or no articulable reason, and that verdict is final. This is a feature, not a bug, of the general verdict in criminal proceedings — but it complicates research into acquitted conduct and its downstream legal effects.
Fourth, historical sources almost exclusively discuss the general verdict in civil terms. The treatment of general verdicts in criminal proceedings, including issues like partial verdicts on multi-count indictments and inconsistent verdicts, is underrepresented in older dictionary sources and must be supplemented with procedural treatises and case law.
Finally, the general verdict interacts with jury instructions in ways that create fertile research territory. An erroneous instruction in a general verdict case may require reversal of the entire verdict because there is no way to know whether the jury relied on the flawed instruction. Researchers examining instructional error claims should always confirm whether the verdict below was general or special.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Burrill's, and Bouvier's converge on the core definition: the general verdict is the ordinary, default verdict form in which the jury finds for one party without elaboration. Burrill adds useful procedural texture, noting that the verdict is delivered orally and entered on the record in the terms of the issue submitted — a reminder that in historical practice the relationship between the pleadings and the verdict form was tighter than modern practice might suggest. The issues "referred to" the jury in older civil practice were formally defined by the pleadings, and the verdict tracked those issues directly.
Bouvier's entry is a cross-reference only, deferring entirely to the main VERDICT entry. This is characteristic of Bouvier's organizational approach but means researchers using Bouvier's should not stop at the general verdict entry.
None of the three historical sources address criminal general verdicts with any depth, and none engage with the general verdict's interaction with multi-theory submissions, inconsistent verdicts, or appellate review standards. These omissions reflect the era of the sources, not the limits of the concept.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal civil practice under Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly distinguishes general verdicts, special verdicts, and general verdicts with interrogatories, giving courts discretion among the forms. State practice varies, with some states favoring special verdicts in particular case types (notably some tort and probate contexts) and others defaulting strongly to general verdicts. Unanimity requirements for general verdicts in criminal cases have also shifted following Ramos v. Louisiana, which federalized the unanimity requirement for serious criminal offenses.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, and Verdict — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia