US courts face growing problem of betting on jury verdicts
American courts are confronting a new challenge from prediction markets as gamblers wager hundreds of thousands of dollars on the outcomes of criminal trials, raising concerns about jury integrity and potential insider trading.
An investigation published by the Wall Street Journal on October 11 found that prediction-market platforms have attracted substantial betting activity around high-profile murder cases, including trials where jurors are still considering evidence or proceedings have yet to begin.
MORE: Gambling in the USA
During the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy in Massachusetts, more than $100,000 was wagered on the outcome.
Following a mistrial in September, when jurors failed to reach a verdict, more than $500,000 in additional wagers were reportedly placed on whether Clancy would eventually be convicted.
Similar activity has emerged around the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, who is accused of murdering conservative commentator Charlie Kirk in Utah.
More than $300,000 had reportedly been wagered on the outcome before Robinson entered a not guilty plea.
The betting activity raises questions about whether jurors, court employees or others with access to confidential proceedings could exploit information unavailable to ordinary traders.
There are also concerns that publicly displayed prediction market prices could influence jurors if they encounter information about how gamblers expect a trial to conclude.
The issue extends an already contentious debate over the legal status of prediction markets in the United States.
Platforms such as Polymarket allow users to trade contracts linked to the outcome of real-world events, including elections, sporting contests and legal proceedings.
Unlike conventional sportsbooks, which generally operate under state gambling licences, qualifying prediction-market contracts may fall under federal commodities regulation.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has recently proposed rules intended to clarify which event contracts qualify as financial derivatives, while expressly excluding traditional sportsbook wagers and casino games from that definition.
However, the growing popularity of contracts linked to criminal proceedings creates a separate regulatory challenge.
Even if a contract qualifies as a financial instrument, questions remain about market manipulation, access to confidential information and whether certain events should be available for trading at all.
