Definition
A perverse verdict is a jury verdict that defies or contradicts the judge's instructions on a point of law. Where a judge directs the jury on how the law applies to the facts before them — whether as to the legal standard governing liability, the elements of an offense, or the proper basis for a finding — and the jury returns a verdict inconsistent with that direction, the result is characterized as perverse. The term signals that the verdict is not merely unexpected or counterintuitive, but that it represents an apparent refusal by the jury to follow binding legal guidance from the bench.
In practice, the concept encompasses two related but distinct situations: (1) a verdict that is legally impossible given the judge's direction — such as a conviction on facts the judge has told the jury cannot support one; and (2) a verdict so contrary to the weight of the evidence that it suggests the jury disregarded both the evidence and the law as explained to them. Courts and commentators do not always distinguish these cleanly, and the historical literature often collapses them.
---
Common Confusion
PERVERSE VERDICT vs. GENERAL VERDICT vs. NULLIFICATION
A perverse verdict is sometimes conflated with jury nullification, but the two are conceptually distinct. Jury nullification describes a jury's deliberate decision to acquit despite the evidence supporting a guilty verdict — typically as a conscientious rejection of the law itself. A perverse verdict is the broader category: it includes any verdict that defies the judge's legal direction, whether the result is an acquittal or a conviction. Nullification is a subset, and importantly, courts are generally reluctant to apply the "perverse" label to acquittals, since acquittals are typically unreviewable. The perverse verdict doctrine has greatest practical force in civil proceedings and in criminal cases where a conviction is challenged on appeal.
Do not confuse a perverse verdict with a general verdict. A general verdict is the standard form in which a jury simply returns a finding for one side; it becomes perverse only when that finding is irreconcilable with the legal framework the judge supplied.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus will encounter "perverse verdict" most often in two contexts: appellate arguments challenging jury decisions, and discussions of the proper scope of judicial control over juries.
The term carries significant jurisdictional and temporal instability. In English common law tradition, the concept developed alongside the question of whether judges could formally direct verdicts or punish jurors for returning them — a controversy settled by Bushell's Case (1670), which established that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. The aftermath of that decision created ongoing tension: courts could not coerce verdicts, yet they retained the right to set aside perverse ones on motion for a new trial. That procedural remedy — the motion for new trial on grounds of a perverse or unreasonable verdict — is the primary mechanism through which the doctrine has operational significance and is where the term appears most frequently in case law.
In American practice, "perverse verdict" as a term of art is less common than in English and Commonwealth usage. American researchers are more likely to encounter equivalent concepts under the headings of "verdict against the weight of the evidence," "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict" (JNOV), or "motion for new trial." When searching historical American sources, do not assume the absence of the phrase "perverse verdict" means the concept is absent — it may simply be framed differently.
In Commonwealth jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia), the term remains in active use and appears in appellate decisions as a recognized ground for overturning a verdict. Researchers working across jurisdictions should treat the term as a reliable signal in English and Canadian sources but should triangulate carefully when reading American materials from the same period.
One corpus trap: Black's 2nd Edition entry for "perverse verdict" appears on the same page as the entry for "PERVISE, PARVISE" — an entirely unrelated term referring to a Westminster courtyard and a form of law student exercise. The physical proximity in the printed dictionary has occasionally caused confusion in index-based searches and transcriptions. Researchers should confirm they are reading the correct headword.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Edition) defines a perverse verdict as one "whereby the jury refuse to follow the direction of the judge on a point of law." This is a spare but accurate core definition. It correctly identifies the essential feature — noncompliance with judicial legal direction — without elaborating on the procedural consequences or the distinction between civil and criminal contexts.
What Black's does not supply, and what researchers must supply from other sources, is any discussion of remedy. The definition is purely descriptive. The operative legal consequence — that a perverse verdict may be set aside and a new trial ordered — is left entirely implicit. Researchers relying solely on Black's 2nd Edition will have the vocabulary but not the procedural framework.
No other historical dictionary sources are available in the current corpus for this term. The entry's brevity is representative of how 19th-century legal dictionaries treated the concept: it was considered sufficiently self-explanatory that extended treatment was unnecessary. Modern researchers should not interpret the thinness of the historical lexicographic record as evidence that the doctrine was minor — it was simply treated as a working term of appellate practice rather than a subject requiring doctrinal elaboration in reference works.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term is most firmly established in English and Commonwealth legal systems, where "perverse verdict" appears as a recognized appellate ground. In American jurisdictions, the functional equivalent is typically addressed through the motion for new trial or the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, and the specific phrase is used less consistently. Researchers should adapt their search vocabulary accordingly when moving between jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, and Verdict — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia (criminal_211)
---