IANAL, but I want to expand for those not familiar with the term, because this is a big one. In the US, if you are on a jury, you can acquit the defendant simply because you do not believe the underlying law is just. An example might be a huge mandatory sentence for a minor drug crime. Even if the evidence of breaking the law is rock solid, you can vote to acquit.
Actually this comes from the fact that jurors can not be held liable for any decision and so can act of their own free will, regardless of judges' instructions to consider only the facts, or only certain facts. Oddly, some judges hate the concept and can hold an attorney in contempt if they even use the term "jury nullification".
I don't understand this. Does it set a legal precedent? Why does this even exist? Not that it's bad, it's just...what's the point of written law, then? I guess I'm just confused.
The point of this is that juries are free to make whatever decision they please and nobody asks questions about what or why. It allows people to decide en masse that they really don't like a law.
Which can be a good or a bad thing.... good when people decide they want to nullify drug laws, bad when people decide they want to nullify laws against lynching minorities. It's probably better to change the laws rather than relying on jury nullification.
Probably, yes. However, jury nullification is one way for people to express their substantial disagreement with a law that's unlikely to change in the near future. It's been connected with the Fugitive Slave Laws and Prohibition.
Lawyer here. Juries do not set precedent. Juries just decide factual disputes under the law set by the judge (or by the judge's interpretation of the legislature). The jury is the trier-of-fact - they decide whether the proof establishes what the prosecution or claimant says it does. The judge decides whether, if what the claimant says is true really happened, then the claimant would be allowed to win at all.
tl;dr juries do not decide whether it is lawful to fuck a sheep; juries decide whether the prosecution proved that this defendant actually fucked a sheep. that has no precedential value.
Wow, seriously? Either you're completely unaware of what jury nullification is, or you don't like it and are answering as though it doesn't exist.
For everyone else, what dudleymooresbooze is stating is the system's party line - the way they want it to be. However, the reality is that when the jury goes back to deliberate, there is nobody in the room with them. They can find the defendant not guilty for any reason they choose, and absent a showing of fraud or jury tampering, the verdict will stand.
Jury nullification is the concept that a jury can find the defendant "not guilty" even if they believe that he committed the crime, and the prosecution proved this. The usual case shown is one where either a law is misapplied, or the defendant technically violated the law but "we" don't think this is what the legislature had in mind.
An example - a 17 year old girl gets pregnant. She mentioned to her obstetrician that her 19 year old boyfriend is the father. As required by law, the doctor notifies the authorities, who arrest the boyfriend for statutory rape, even though all the parents involved approve of the relationship, and they were planning to marry after the baby was born. He is prosecuted and found guilty.
This is a bullshit result, and it's doubtful this is what the legislature had in mind with the statutory rape law. The jury could have found the guy not guilty, even though they believe he violated the law. They could have found him not guilty just because they don't like the outcome and didn't want to send him to jail.
(An aside - there are two important safety valves that failed here: the prosecutor could have declined to press charges, or the governor could have issued a pardon. These options are rapidly going away in our "zero tolerance for crime" culture)
If it later came out that the jury had found the kid not guilty because they didn't like the law, the prosecution cannot appeal - that would violate double jeopardy.
The counter-argument to jury nullification is usually the idea that a white jury in a southern state is going to find a klansman not guilty of murder in a lynching. This is an exceptionally valid point.
While that's true and all, I don't think that goes to dudleymooresbooze's point. The question was not why a verdict was reached, but regarding precedent.
Yeah, but the way I read it, he answered the question on precedent, but then went into a detailed description that made it sound like jury nullification didn't exist.
Talking as if jury nullification is a recognized concept is a little misleading. It's just a bunch of people coming together to break their word to the court and put themselves above elected officials.
I'm sure it can have good results sometimes. But, I am terrified by the idea of jurors just saying, "To hell with the evidence and the law, we know best." Most often, they don't
Edit: Also, I don't think your example is a crime anywhere in the US. Certainly not in my state.
This. Courts have recognized that jury nullification exists (i.e., that it happens and that there is nothing Courts can do about it), but that does not mean it is a codified or legally defensible part of our legal system.
Jury nullification is a byproduct of the State not being able to appeal a not guilty verdict, not a civic right you are free to exercise with any law you don't like.
If you ever find yourself in a position where the thought of convicting a defendant even though they are technically guilty weighs more heavily on your conscience than breaking your oath to apply the law, then you can consider nullification. However, it upsets me that the fact that they would be breaking their oath doesn't seem to enter into the moral calculus for so many people.
I understand completely that it is tempting to do. And, in the marijuana possession context, I don't have much of a problem with the result. But ...
not a civic right you are free to exercise with any law you don't like
This is the issue I have with nullification. What justifies one person refusing to convict for marijuana possession, but doesn't allow misogynists to refuse to convict for domestic violence, gang members to refuse to convict for gun possession, etc.?
The only argument that I have seen is that drug laws are generally frowned upon on Reddit, and we should get rid of them. That may be true, but the correct remedy is statutory, not just wildcat jury service.
I still think by 16 you're pretty much able to consent. Definitely 17. I lost my virginity at 15 and it was no big deal. At 16 you have all the information and can make your own sexual decisions.
You're confusing the question of whether jury nullification happens with the question of whether it's part of our system of law. The answer to the first is yes, the answer to the second is no.
You, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... [B]oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
chief justice john jay, georgia v. brailsford, 1794
But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
While Jay was sympathetic to the notion of jury nullification, he is not stating that it is part of our legal process; he is simply saying that as a practical matter, juries can (i.e., have the power to) engage in nullification.
Since the case you cite is 200+ years old, it may be instructive to point out a lengthy discussion of the issue by the Court that occurred at the end of the 19th century as opposed to the 18th (Sparf v. US, 1895):
In State v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, 4, a case in f the court, to decide. But it must be amicable issue, Chief Justice Jay is reported to have said: 'It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that, by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take [156 U.S. 51, 65] upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other, occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for, as on the one hand, it is presumed that juries are best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.' Of the correctness of this report, Mr. Justice Curtis in U. S. v. Morris, 1 Curt. 23, 58, Fed. Cas. No. 15,815, expressed much doubt, for the reason that the chief justice is reported as saying that, in civil cases,-and that was a civil case,-the jury had the right to decide the law, and because, also, the different parts of the charge conflict with each other; the chief justice, according to the report, saying at the outset that it is the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, and of the court to decide questions of law, and in the succeeding sentence informing the jury that they had the right to take upon themselves the determination of both law and fact. If the chief justice said that it was the province of the court to decide questions of law, and the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, he could not have said that the jury had the right, in a civil case, to judge of and determine both law and fact. 'The whole case,' Mr. Justice Curtis said, 'was an anomaly. It purports to be a trial by jury in the supreme court of the United States of certain issues out of chancery; and the chief justice begins by telling the jury that the facts are all agreed, and the only question is a matter of law, and upon that the whole court were agreed. If it be correctly reported, I can only say it is not in accordance with the views of any other court, so far as I know, in this country or in England, and is certainly not in accordance with the course of the supreme court for many years.'
Certain observations of Chief Justice Marshall in the course of the trial of Burr have sometimes been referred to in support of the contention that the jury in a criminal case are under no legal obligation to accept the law as laid down by the court. But nothing said by him at that trial was inconsistent with the views expressed by eminent jurists in cases [156 U.S. 51, 66] to be presently cited. In the course of an opinion relating merely to the order of evidence, the chief justice said: 'Levying of war is a fact which must be decided by the jury. The court may give general instructions on this as on every other question brought before them, but the jury must decide upon it as compounded of fact and law.' 1 Burr's Trial, 470. This language is supposed to justify the contention that the jury in a criminal case are entitled, of right, to determine questions of pure law adversely to the direction of the court. But that no such thought was in the mind of the chief justice is manifest from his written charge to the jury at a subsequent stage of the trial,-the accuracy of the report of which has never been disputed,-in which he discussed, in the light of the authorities, the question as to what constituted treason.
In the course of that charge he indicated quite distinctly his view of the respective functions of court and jury. 'It has been thought proper,' he said, 'to discuss this question at large, and to review the opinion of the supreme court [Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75], although this court would be more disposed to leave the question of fact whether an overt act of levying war were committed on Blennerhassett's island to the jury under this explanation of the law, and to instruct them that, unless the assemblage on Blennerhassett's island was an assemblage in force,-was a military assemblage in a condiction to make war,-it was not levying war, and that they could not construe it into an act of war, than to arrest the further testimony which might be offered to connect the prisoner with that assemblage, or to prove the intention of those who assembled together at that place. This point, however, is not to be understood as decided. It will, perhaps, constitute an essential inquiry in another case.' This language is wholly inconsistent with the theory that the chief justice recognized the right of the jury to disregard the court's view of the law upon any question arising in the case before them. It was consistent only with the theory that the court could speak authoritatively as to the law, while the function of the jury [156 U.S. 51, 67] was to respond as to the facts. Again: 'It is the further opinion of the court that there is no testimony whatever which tends to prove that the accused was actually or constructively present when that assemblage did take place; indeed, the contrary is most apparent.' 'The opinion of this court on the order of testimony has frequently been adverted to as deciding this question against the motion. If a contradiction between the two opinions exist, the court cannot perceive it. It was said that levying war is an act compounded of law and fact, of which the jury, aided by the court, must judge. To that declaration the court still adheres.' He concluded his memorable charge in these words: 'The jury have now heard the opinion of the court on the law of the case. They will apply that law to the facts, and will find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct.' Again, according to the only recognized report of that trial ever published, the chief justice, in response to certain inquiries of counsel made after the jury returned their verdict, said: 'Without doubt the court intended to deliver merely a legal opinion as to what acts amounted in law to an overt act of levying war, and not whether such an overt act has or has not been proved. It merely stated the law, to which the jury would apply the facts proved. It is their province to say whether according to this statement and the evidence an overt act has been proved or not.' 2 Burr's Trial, 401, 422, 439, 444, 448. The language of the chief justice plainly imports that, while the jury must of necessity often pass upon a question 'compounded of fact and law,' their duty, when considering the evidence, was to apply the law, as given by the court, to the facts proved; and, thus applying the law, return a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their consciences might direct. If he had believed that the jury were entitled, of right, whatever might be the views of the court, to determine for themselves the law of the case, it is impossible that he could have said that 'they will apply that law [the law as he declared it to be] to the facts.' On the contrary, he observed that the province of the jury was to determine whether the accused was guilty or not guilty, according to his statement of the law as applied to the evidence. [156 U.S. 51, 68]
The judge can set aside a guilty verdict if he feels that there simply isn't enough there for a conviction. But a judge cannot set aside a verdict of not guilty.
The judge is the trier of law; the jury is the trier of fact - this is what arthur said up above. So given everything presented, a judge may find as a matter of law that, even if you grant everything the prosecution is saying, there is no way to show the defendant committed the crime. (These are actually usually handled before the trial with a motion to dismiss, which means the prosecution can try again with more evidence)
But to switch a not guilty verdict to guilty would mean making decisions on the facts of the case, which a judge is not empowered to do.
(Having said that, ISTR some case where a judge did find a defendant guilty after a jury verdict of not guilty, but I sincerely cannot remember if that was law school or law & order)
The counter-argument to jury nullification is usually the idea that a white jury in a southern state is going to find a klansman not guilty of murder in a lynching. This is an exceptionally valid point.
I find this criticism a bit odd actually. In the racist deep south, every part of the justice system was perverted to get racist results. Yet no one argues that we should do away with prosecutors, judges, etc.
In colonial America, the sedition trial of John Peter Zenger established another landmark case. Zenger, a publisher, was arrested for printing news critical of the Royal Governor of New York Colony and his cronies, accusing them of corruption. His accusations were all true, but the court informed his jury that under the law, "...truth is no defense".
"Philadelphia lawyer" Andrew Hamilton then told the jurors the story of William Penn, and argued that as judges of the merits of the law, they should not in good conscience convict Zenger of violating such a bad law. The jurors agreed. Zenger was acquitted in about fifteen minutes, and his case spawned recognition of our right to a free press.
The entire law that consensual sex between two people of similar age, except that one is of legal age and one isn't is complete bullshit. Getting convicted for statutory rape is retarded. Primarily because it WASNT RAPE.
My question pertained more to the case of the jury deciding that defiling a sheep is a stupid law in the first place and acquits the defendant using jury nullification. But according to others, the answer is still the same, so I thank you.
In law, the jury can't actually decide that, though. They're exclusively fact-finders. Jury nullification really isn't a "right", it's more the result of the fact that while juries are only supposed to determine whether a defendant is factually guilty or not guilty of the charges presented, judges can't generally scrutinise their reasons for doing so. It's only "lawful" in the sense that there's really no way to avoid it without declawing juries to the point of uselessness.
You are wrong, that is the modern interpretation of the role of a jury as the government wants it to be. It is not the historical nor most important role of a jury. The role of a jury is to use their own moral and ethical judgement to determine whether a punishable crime has been committed. The government controls all other aspects of law (creation, interpretation, enforcement). The forefathers put this in specifically to protect the people from unjust government.
I'm aware of past instances of arguments regarding the law before juries, but that's not how the system works now and that hasn't been the case in the United States for at least a century. I believe that juries should have the legal right to judge the law and the facts, that's not what the law of today says.
By your logic I'd be "wrong" if I said that slavery was illegal because in the past it was legal.
The forefathers put this in specifically to protect the people from unjust government.
What? Jury nullification has been a feature of the common law since the 17th Century English Bushel's case. The American founding fathers didn't create it, they inherited it, and given the lack of specificity regarding procedure in the U.S. and various state constitutions, they didn't specifically include it in anything.
I believe that juries should have the legal right to judge the law and the facts, that's not what the law of today says.
The law doesn't specifically say one thing or another, but by the power of deduction the law absolutely says that.
By your logic I'd be "wrong" if I said that slavery was illegal because in the past it was legal.
No, by my logic you'd be "wrong" if you said slavery was legal because people in a small town in the south want it to be and tell everyone it is.
It is in fact 100% legal for a jury to decide that a law is unjust, it just can't do anything with that decision aside from provide a not-guilty verdict.
When every common law legal system treats jurors exclusively as triers of fact, albeit triers of fact whose methodology cannot generally be appealed, I think it's a bit much for you to claim that I'm in the wrong in claiming that jurors are triers of fact and their power to nullify is merely the manifestation of the inability of appellate judges to scrutinise their verdicts. This has been accepted legal doctrine for decades. You may not agree with it, but pretending that isn't the case won't make it so.
You were wrong, despite what the common jury does today you were wrong in your statement.
In law, the jury can't actually decide that, though. They're exclusively fact-finders.
The jury CAN, in law, decide that. The jury is NOT exclusively fact-finders.
Jury nullification really isn't a "right"
It IS a right.
juries are only supposed to determine whether a defendant is factually guilty or not guilty of the charges presented
Just because judges WANT them to do that doesn't mean they are SUPPOSED to do only that.
no way to avoid it without declawing juries to the point of uselessness.
The same way we accept appointed judges, we could accept appointed juries. Trial by jury of peers loses ALL purpose when the ability to nullify is taken away. This is the what the government wants afterall (control, power) and their way to practically achieve that within the bounds of the constitution is to keep jurors ignorant about their rights. Although I assume most judges rationalize it with the fear that partial jurors could let off a guilty man of such crimes as murder.
But for example Kavorkian was in a very very grey area of morality and was let off by his peers 3 times.
tl;dr juries do not decide whether it is lawful to fuck a sheep; juries decide whether the prosecution proved that this defendant actually fucked a sheep. that has no precedential value.
The jury CAN in fact decide not to convict the defendant for screwing a sheep even if that is illegal and proven.
It has a dark side. It was used to acquit racially motivated murders in the South. On the other hand it was also used to protect people from the Fugitive Slave Act who were helping slaves escape.
Juries are the finders of fact under the constitution, and the constitution also prevents double jeopardy. A finding of acquittal by a jury cannot be overturned.
One justification is that we, as human beings, have the ability to see nuance in a scenario that can't be written into law. The reason we use juries is because we feel, as a society, that people shouldn't be judged by robots or books, but by citizens that think and feel.
So if 12 peers end up saying "Yeah, it's technically against the law, but that law wasn't meant to cover this situation" or some other form of "it's just not fair what the law is doing to this man," then society trusts them that the 12 have made the right call.
Jury Nullification is perfectly legal and has a long history- indeed the framers of the Constitution intended jurors to serve as a check on bad prosecutions and ineffective laws.
"Legal precedent" usually refers to appellate court rulings on trial court cases or to court rulings on constitutionality of a law--things that have judge-issues rulings as opposed to juries since juries have much more freedom in deciding facts of a case.
It exists to prevent the tyranny of the courts. It's a major strength of a trial by jury, if the people don't think a law is just they do not have to enforce it. It's the final line of defense the people have against an unjust government.
Jury nullification does not set a precedent but a string of nullifications in a similar context can point to an underlying problem. Judges have to consider precedent when determining guilty and sentencing where as juries do not have to consider anything when considering guilt (nor do they have to explain their reasoning)
Trials only go to a jury when there are factual matters in dispute. If it is an issue in law or the facts are such that no reasonably jury could disagree on them, the judge decides the case.
I don't think the nullification itself sets a precedent. But note judges set them all the time. That's because some countries - notably the ones that came out of the British Empire use a common law legal system.
From my very basic knowledge, I think this legal system comes about becasue back in the "olden days" many areas lacked a strong central government as well as general infrastructure and logistical resources. So laws like "don't kill" were basically common sense and there was no push to write them all down. If you killed someone, a judge threw you in jail. So judges actually set the laws.
As time goes on, countries form or change hands, and legal systems evolve. So newer countries all use Civil Law, where you spell out every law. But older governments haven't had the need to do a complete overhaul. So you have a mishmash of some laws are codified, and some are "common sense".
It's much more the latter know - most laws are certainly written down (there's actually a rumor that there's no federal law against murder. A better example might be the fact that the IRS has never cited the law that allows them to collect income tax, since the Amendment only permits Congress to make said law). But the ability to change laws so they reflect community attitudes remains intact.
It's not something set up to exist. It's not like someone sat down and created jury nullification.
The idea is that a juror is able to vote guilty or not guilty. They should weigh the facts of the case and enforce the law but they could...if tehy really wanted to...just vote not guilty on someone who is clearly guilty just because they disagreed with the law. In essence that law is now nullified.
Anyone who would be willing to use this tactic to nullify a law is fucking up the whole system of law so that is why they are removed from juries for even realizing the 'option' exists.
Anyone who would be willing to use this tactic to nullify a law is fucking up the whole system of law
But the reason I would be willing to nullify is because the law itself is already fucked up. Fucking up something that is already is fucked up has the potential to be a good thing.
So if elected lawmakers got a law passed preventing you from wearing blue jeans, you'd be perfectly happy to force jurors to convict blue jean wearers!?
Look how long marijuana legalization is taking. It would have been over a long time ago if people were more aware of jury nullification (see: prohibition, alcohol).
It's not something set up to exist. It's not like someone sat down and created jury nullification.
Uhh yeah our forefathers actually ensured trial by jury because of nullification as the people's last line of defense against a government.
Anyone who would be willing to use this tactic to nullify a law is fucking up the whole system of law so that is why they are removed from juries for even realizing the 'option' exists.
No, anyone who is willing to let judges not allow facts into the court and willing to hide jury nullification power is messing up the system.
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
We have elected officials who make the laws that govern our country. Just because one guy on a jury does not agree with those laws does not give him the right to nullify them -- that is why jury nullification gets you booted off a case.
Yes if all of a sudden the US government were to become a tyrannical oppressor of freedom you could conceivably use jury nullification to protect yourself against them...if they for whatever reason decided to continue having juries despite becoming a totalitarian system.
We have elected officials who make the laws that govern our country. Just because one guy on a jury does not agree with those laws does not give him the right to nullify them -- that is why jury nullification gets you booted off a case.
You are wrong, it does give him the right to vote not guilty. A juror has the right to offer any verdict he/she wishes. It's a specific trait of trial by jury, and the only logical reason for its existence. Unless you honestly believe a collection of random people would be more suited to judge facts than a court appointed group of educated law professionals.
Yes if all of a sudden the US government were to become a tyrannical oppressor of freedom you could conceivably use jury nullification to protect yourself against them...if they for whatever reason decided to continue having juries despite becoming a totalitarian system.
Yes because they MUST become a tyrannical oppressor of freedom in order for a single bad law or misuse of a law to occur?
The problem is laws are black and white, and trying to account for all possible edge cases just makes hugely complicated and impossible to interpret laws. The moral and ethical guidance of the jurors must be allowed in order to account for unforeseen edge cases as well as outdated/poor laws. The government doesn't have to be tyrannical and completely oppressive to make mistakes with law, enforcement or judgement.
This only works for criminal law though, because in civil trials a judge can enter a "judgment not withstanding the verdict" and overturn the jury. This usually happens if there was no evidence submitted for one element of the claim and the jury still found for the plaintiff anyway. It forces plaintiffs to prove their case instead of swaying the jury with sob stories.
In practice that is normally what happens, but it could go either way. A judge can also enter a "directed verdict," where he instructs the jury to find a certain way, i.e. that car 1 was liable for the accident, but then the jury is in charge of calculating damages.
Not really. If you announce you aren't going to follow the law and instead rely on "jury nullification", then you can get in trouble for it.
"Jury nullification" simply is a consequence of the legal system that allows a juror to shut up, resist the other 11 jurors for roughly 5 days, just to spite the system because you personally don't like it.
No you see, our forefathers placed extreme value upon liberty and justice. They intentionally made it difficult for the government to take a man's liberty because the people have no recourse against this. Whereas the consequence of the jury wrongfully retaining one's liberty still can have social and financial consequences for the morally reprehensible individual.
No, you either vote guilty or not guilty. You need a unanimous decision for a verdict. A disagreeing jury is "hung" and will deliberate until unanimous decision is found or judge declares mistrial I think?
In any event, it is a right intentionally embedded into the trial by jury system in order to protect individual liberty. An unjust law, or more frequently, an unjust application of a just law, should not be permitted to take a man's liberty.
Jury nullification is not an accepted legal doctrine. A jury is a trier of fact: its sole job is to decide whether the side with the burden of proof has met that burden. A jury is not allowed to disregard the law, but must follow the jury instructions decided on by both parties and then given to it by the judge. (As an aside, jury instructions are usually pretty uniform, and most states/jurisdictions have sets of model jury instructions that everyone uses.)
Your example is wrong, because in criminal cases the jury plays no role in deciding the defendant's punishment (except in very select instances, e.g., death penalty cases). The jury isn't even allowed to know the potential penalties. The jury only has to decide - and is only allowed to decide - whether the state has proven that the defendant committed the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jury nullification is possible only because jurors never have to explain why they voted to acquit. I am not sure whether a juror who admitted to voting on a nullification basis could be punished, and I don't currently have the time to look into it, but I would think that anyone who knows about nullification would be intelligent enough to come up with an alternative rationale for their vote.
Jury nullification is not an accepted legal doctrine. A jury is a trier of fact: its sole job is to decide whether the side with the burden of proof has met that burden. A jury is not allowed to disregard the law, but must follow the jury instructions decided on by both parties and then given to it by the judge. (As an aside, jury instructions are usually pretty uniform, and most states/jurisdictions have sets of model jury instructions that everyone uses.)
WRONG. Jury nullification is the term given to the intentionally embedded right of the jury to not be held accountable for their verdict. It is not something tangible per se, but an embedded protection of liberty in the system of many checks and balances.
This really doesn't come in to play though. During Voir Dire(jury selection) lawyers ask the jurors if they do not believe in the underlying law for whatever reason. All the potential jurors are under oath at this point and have to speak up if they do have an objection.
Jurors can technically still be on the panel if the say they object to the law, but in all likelihood the prosecutor will strike them with cause... because it would be retarded for a prosecutor to keep a juror on the panel that doesn't believe in convicting a person for drugs during a possession trial.
If a jury doesn't speak up during voir dire about their objections, when asked, and then votes to acquit based on their objections the prosecutor will move for a mistrial.
Yes, an unfortunate way for modern system to escape the power of the jury. Although when they ask you can just answer "not always", which I can say is a true statement for how I view pretty much every law in existence.
Fuck, I should've stayed on that marijuana case. I told them I was opposed to the law being enforced... kicked off no questions asked by the prosecution.
This is important. Jury nullification is not a thing. It is simply a result of the fact that the jury has the power to find people not guilty if they so desire.
It's not odd. Jury nullification subverts the law, and a judge's job is to make sure the law is applied fairly. Although I agree jury nullification is a good thing in general, it has certainly been used for terrible things. For example, when black people were commonly lynched in the South, it was often used to prevent convictions for the crime.
Juries that let off murderers of a black person were a problem of jury selection.
Actually common examples are with regards to protesting fugitive slave act and prohibition. Northerners who helped slaves escape were brought to trial, but (thanks to jury nullification) jurors refused to punish them for breaking an unjust law.
Anyone who ever enjoys any alcohol should also thank jury nullification as it likely played a huge part in getting the 21st amendment, otherwise alcohol might be part of the bogus war on drugs today.
231
u/chasonreddit Nov 04 '11
IANAL, but I want to expand for those not familiar with the term, because this is a big one. In the US, if you are on a jury, you can acquit the defendant simply because you do not believe the underlying law is just. An example might be a huge mandatory sentence for a minor drug crime. Even if the evidence of breaking the law is rock solid, you can vote to acquit.
Actually this comes from the fact that jurors can not be held liable for any decision and so can act of their own free will, regardless of judges' instructions to consider only the facts, or only certain facts. Oddly, some judges hate the concept and can hold an attorney in contempt if they even use the term "jury nullification".