A legally inconsistent verdict is a verdict that is defective because of contradictory conclusions.
The jury might find the same element to exist and not to exist - or the defendant might be acquitted of one crime, but convicted of a second crime that depends on the commission of the first. One of the primary purposes underlying the principle of res judicata is to prevent legally inconsistent verdicts from occurring.
If a party to a case wishes to plead res judicata either to preclude an entire claim or preclude a single issue from being litigated again on the basis of a previous final but inconsistent verdict, then the claim of res judicata will be assessed based on the “last in time” judgment—meaning the decision that was handed down most recently is applicable.
For example, in a scenario based on similar issues with slightly different actions where Action 1 goes for A, Action 2 goes for B, and A sues B again in Action 3, B could successfully plead issue preclusion given the fact that the most recent of the inconsistent verdicts (Action 2) was decided in their favor. However, it is worth noting that outside of the United States, most countries apply the “first-in-time” judgment—meaning the judgment that was rendered first before the subsequent inconsistent verdict holds.
[Last updated in June of 2023 by the Wex Definitions Team]