Certain principles are available to help courts decide patchwork-verdict questions when they arise. Foremost among these is the rule of individualism-that each juror should give his verdict as if he were the sole judge of the case. The rule of individualism suggests that patchwork verdicts are proper. The policies supporting general verdicts and unfettered jury freedom support patchwork verdicts as well. The main theoretical objections to patchwork verdicts are analogous to the arguments made in favor of detailed special findings, which are not everywhere well accepted. In civil cases, where procedural considerations dominate, the rule of individualism leads to the conclusion that patchwork verdicts are proper in most situations. Similarly, in criminal cases patchwork verdicts should be proper where only a single offense is charged. But where the legislative intent is that the substantive criminal law create separate offenses, a patchwork verdict among them should not be allowed.

Certain principles are available to help courts decide patchwork-verdict questions when they arise. Foremost among these is the rule of individualism-that each juror should give his verdict as if he were the sole judge of the case. The rule of individualism suggests that patchwork verdicts are proper. The policies supporting general verdicts and unfettered jury freedom support patchwork verdicts as well. The main theoretical objections to patchwork verdicts are analogous to the arguments made in favor of detailed special findings, which are not everywhere well accepted.

In civil cases, where procedural considerations dominate, the rule of individualism leads to the conclusion that patchwork verdicts are proper in most situations. Similarly, in criminal cases patchwork verdicts should be proper where only a single offense is charged. But where the legislative intent is that the substantive criminal law create separate offenses, a patchwork verdict among them should not be allowed.

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]