1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, November 20, 2006

    Capital Defense NewsletterNovember 19, 2006

    What is sufficient is that the inconsistency was a product of irrationality that requires the Court to set aside the verdict on Count Eight.The United States Supreme Court has held that "consistency in the verdict is not necessary." Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S. Ct. 189, 76 L. Ed. 356 (1932). Thus, the general rule is that "inconsistent findings in a jury verdict do not invalidate the verdict."