In Texas, your client can be convicted by a jury that doesn’t actually agree on what crime was committed. Sound wrong? It is. But it happens all the time—and courts have been calling it lawful for decades.

The issue boils down to a recurring misunderstanding of two words: manner and means. Prosecutors often charge an offense in the disjunctive—crime A or crime B—and trial courts treat it like it’s all one offense. Jurors are then told they don’t need to agree on which version occurred, just that one of them did.

So six jurors may think it was conduct X. Six others think it was conduct Y. No actual majority on any single offense. But still—guilty.

Where This Comes From

Texas courts have long held that if different “manners or means” are alleged, unanimity isn’t required. The problem is, the courts have stretched the definition of “means” beyond recognition. What they often call a “means” is, in reality, a separate offense requiring its own unanimous finding.

The result? Confused jurors. Bad verdicts. And convictions that don’t hold up to constitutional scrutiny.

What IACLS Is Doing

We’re challenging this fiction head-on. IACLS lawyers have been raising the jury unanimity issue in appellate briefs across Texas. We’re working with trial lawyers to preserve the issue in real time, and we’re making the case that these fractured verdicts violate both Texas and federal law.

The end goal: force courts to revisit what “unanimity” actually means, and stop allowing convictions based on a patchwork of half-agreements.

How You Can Help

• If you’re a trial lawyer, preserve this objection at the charge conference.
• If you’re briefing this issue, reach out—we may have language or precedent you can use.
• Donate to support the long game: appellate litigation, briefing, and pattern-charge reform.

This isn’t academic. It’s the difference between a hung jury and a wrongful conviction. And we’re not backing off.

Want to fight this with us? Email friends@iacls.org or donate here.