RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Rule 3.160.Explanation of Proceedings to Jurors

Current through August 1, 2026 · Last verified September 12, 2026

In one sentenceUTCR 3.160 says that in a jury case dismissed before verdict the judge, when dismissing the jury, should briefly explain the procedure and why no verdict was needed, without discussing the facts.

Full Text of Rule 3.160

Text size

In jury cases, after sustaining a dismissal of the case before verdict, the judge, in dismissing the jury, should, without discussion of the facts, briefly explain the procedure and why a verdict was unnecessary.
End

Plain-English Summary

Some jury cases end before the jury decides anything. When a dismissal is sustained before verdict, this rule asks the judge to send the jury home with an explanation: a brief account of the procedure and of why a verdict turned out to be unnecessary.

Two limits shape that explanation. It is brief, and it comes without discussion of the facts. The second limit does the heavy lifting. A case that ended on a legal ruling should not be recapped through the evidence on the way out the door, and the rule keeps the judge's parting words on the mechanics rather than the merits.

The rule is phrased with should rather than must, which reads as guidance to the bench rather than a command backed by a consequence. The reason behind it is easy to see. Jurors who have sat through a case and are then dismissed without deciding it leave with a question, and a short explanation answers it without saying anything about how the case would have come out.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the judge send the jury home without a verdict?

Because the case was dismissed before it reached the jury. This rule asks the judge, when dismissing the jury in that situation, to briefly explain the procedure and why a verdict was unnecessary.

Can the judge discuss the evidence in that explanation?

No. The rule directs the judge to explain without discussion of the facts, which keeps the remarks on procedure rather than on the merits of the case.

Is the explanation required?

The rule uses should rather than must, which makes it guidance to the bench rather than a mandate. It also attaches no consequence to the absence of an explanation.

Does this rule cover a mistrial?

Its terms address a jury case in which a dismissal is sustained before verdict. It does not speak to other ways a trial can end.

Can the parties ask the judge to include something in the explanation?

The rule sets out no procedure for that. It describes what the judge should cover, briefly and without the facts, and leaves the wording to the court.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR 3.160). Prescribed by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court (UTCR 1.020). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 12, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: utcr 3.160judge explanation when jury is dismissedcase dismissed before verdict juryexplaining procedure to jurorsjury dismissed before verdict oregon