Most readers of this blog rarely, if ever, become involved in homicide cases.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s essentially unanimous decision in McElrath v. Georgia should be of interest because it deals with the issue of inconsistent verdicts, something that many of us have experienced, but this time, as such verdicts might affect double jeopardy. Damian McElrath was charged with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault for having killed his mother. A jury returned a split verdict against him, finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity” with respect to malice murder but “guilty but mentally ill” as to the other two counts.

The Supreme Court of Georgia determined that the felony murder verdict was “repugnant” to the “not guilty by reason of insanity verdict” on the malice murder count because Georgia law requires findings of different mental states for these offenses that cannot exist at the same time. Accordingly, the Georgia court vacated the verdicts on both counts and ordered a retrial. The Supreme Court of the United States (Jackson, J., writing for eight justices, with Alito, J., concurring) reversed, holding that the jury’s verdict that Mr. McElrath was not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts. The Court held that whether an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes has occurred is a matter of federal law, and the jury’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is “unquestionably” an acquittal. In sum, “[a]n acquittal is an acquittal, even when a jury returns inconsistent verdicts.”

I note this case not just because I try (except where I might have a conflict) to discuss every Supreme Court decision. With respect to the McElrath case, I admit to having less interest in the double jeopardy claim itself (though Mr. McElrath no doubt is very interested in it) than in the issue of inconsistent verdicts. As Justice Alito accurately states in his concurrence, the Court recognizes that various states allow trial judges to refuse to accept inconsistent verdicts and may send a jury back to deliberate further. That proposition was not at issue here because the malice murder verdict was indisputably an acquittal. So, we are left with the recognition that in some criminal cases, a trial court can demand the resolution of inconsistent verdicts unless one of them rises to definitive constitutional proportions as a judgment of acquittal.

But what about civil cases? Is there an analog? I expect that some future parties—plaintiffs or defendants—will attempt to argue by analogy to McElrath that there are some judgments—say, with respect to the element of intent—that should be held to stand, notwithstanding inconsistencies with other counts of a complaint. Admittedly, that is something of a stretch, but I wouldn’t bet against it.

In another case, Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., a unanimous Court held that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions that were not applicable in the instant case. The decision derives from Article III’s grant of federal jurisdiction to “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction,” which contemplates a uniform system of maritime law across the country. See Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U. S. 14, 28 (2004).

Back to Commercial Litigation Update Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Commercial Litigation Update posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.