When a Hung Jury Is a Win: Avoiding a Murder Conviction and a Possible Life Sentence

Many criminal trials don’t end with a clean verdict of guilty or not guilty. Sometimes, even though they heard the same testimony and reviewed the same pieces of evidence, jurors will come to completely different conclusions and report to the court they cannot agree on a verdict, resulting in a hung jury.

That was the outcome of a recent four-and-a-half-day murder trial handled by Arkansas criminal defense attorney Birc Morledge. The jury divided evenly: six jurors voted not guilty, while six voted guilty. In this case, a hung jury was a win for our client.

While a hung jury is not an acquittal and the prosecution may have the option to try the charge again, it meant that no murder conviction was entered against our client. Considering he was facing the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, the outcome represented a major victory for both him and his family.

Facts of the Case: A Marijuana Deal That Turned Violent

The case arose from a 2022 encounter involving three 17-year-old boys and two 21-year-old men who were selling marijuana from inside a car.

The three teenagers approached the vehicle intending to purchase marijuana. Birc’s client was one of those teenage boys and stood near the front passenger-side window, brokering the transaction.

But what initially appeared to be a drug purchase quickly became much more dangerous. Based on the facts presented at trial, Birc believed the men inside the vehicle intended to rob the teenagers standing outside it.

As Birc’s client used his phone’s flashlight to look at the marijuana inside the vehicle, the man sitting in the front passenger seat began raising a gun. When our client saw this he defensively grabbed the weapon and pushed it downward. A struggle for the firearm ensued as the two fought for control of the weapon. When the passenger regained control, Birc’s client, fearing for his life, pulled his own gun from his waistband, firing at close range while turning and running away from the vehicle.

In court, Birc made the case that his client reasonably believed his life to be in danger. He did not initiate the confrontation, when the passenger brandished a gun he reacted by trying to wrestle control of it  and only fired his weapon when the effort to disarm the passenger failed.

Birc described the incident to the jury as a clear case of self-defense.

Six Jurors Saw Reasonable Doubt

The prosecution asked the jury to convict Birc’s client of murder. Birc asked the jurors to evaluate what his client could reasonably have believed in the brief and frantic moments after the passenger raised a gun. Ultimately, the jury was unable to agree and failed to reach a unanimous decision.

Six jurors voted to convict. Six voted not guilty.

That even split mattered. Half of the jury accepted the defense’s account of the confrontation or concluded that the prosecution had not disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of that 50/50 split, no murder conviction was entered against Birc’s client.

That outcome stands in stark contrast to that of the two teenagers who had been with our client. They were convicted in connection with shots fired at the vehicle after the initial confrontation and are now serving substantial prison sentences for murder and other charges.

Birc’s client was convicted of a lesser charge and received a sentence and will only be incarcerated for a little more than five years. That was not the complete acquittal the defense had sought. But compared to a murder conviction and a potential life sentence, it was an outcome the client and his family considered a win.

“At the end of the day, it was a good outcome,” Birc said. “I would have liked to have walked him completely, but I’ll take the win. A win’s a win.”

Every day the client avoids a murder conviction is consequential. The difference between serving several years on a lesser offense and spending life in prison couldn’t be greater.

Honest Assessment in a High-Stakes Case

When someone is facing a serious criminal charge, optimism alone is not a defense strategy.

Those facing serious charges need an attorney who will level with them and provide an honest assessment of the risks of their case. One who will clearly explain their potential sentencing exposure and what outcomes they should view as acceptable, even if not optimal. 

In this case, attorney Birc Morledge presented the strongest defense that the facts would allow and achieved an outcome for his client that was significantly more favorable than the potential sentence he was facing. For him and his family, it was a meaningful win.