# Hey, Lawyers! How do you arrive at a Hung Jury?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-lawyers-how-do-you-arrive-at-a-hung-jury/53785>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 9, 2001, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-lawyers-how-do-you-arrive-at-a-hung-jury/53785 "2001-02-09T14:07:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-lawyers-how-do-you-arrive-at-a-hung-jury/53785/21 "2001-02-10T21:56:36Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by KellyM \*  
> Wring: “Innocent” and “Not guilty” mean the same thing, legally, at least within the criminal law. The choice to call the verdict “not guilty” is stylistic rather than substantive (IMO). A jury’s finding of “not guilty” means that the defendant is innocent, for the purposes of the criminal law. It does not, of course, mean that the defendant is not liable for damages; the civil law has different standards of proof.

Bit of a nit, **KellyM** , but I think “not guilty” as opposed to “innocent” does have legal significance, and where it does is in the civil damages context. Pretending for a second that an “innocent” verdict existed, I (as a civil defense attorney) would argue that an innocent verdict would mean that any attempt to go after my client in civil court for damages would be collaterally estopped.

Sua

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-lawyers-how-do-you-arrive-at-a-hung-jury/53785.md?page=1)