A more thorough explanation:

A legally inconsistent verdict is a verdict that is flawed because it contains contradictory conclusions. This means that the jury may find that an element exists and does not exist at the same time. For example, a defendant may be acquitted of one crime but convicted of another crime that depends on the commission of the first crime.

One example of a legally inconsistent verdict is when a jury finds a defendant guilty of murder but also finds that the defendant acted in self-defense. This is legally inconsistent because if the defendant acted in self-defense, then they cannot be guilty of murder.

Another example is when a defendant is acquitted of a crime but convicted of a lesser included offense. For instance, if a defendant is charged with first-degree murder but is acquitted of that charge, but then convicted of second-degree murder, this is legally inconsistent because second-degree murder requires the same elements as first-degree murder, plus an additional element.

These examples illustrate how a legally inconsistent verdict can occur when the jury reaches contradictory conclusions. This can happen when the jury is confused about the law or the facts of the case, or when the evidence is not clear.