Juries: Law Application Fairness And Impartiality

A juror's primary role is to evaluate the facts of a case and apply the law without bias. However, in some cases, jurors may disagree with the law itself, believing it to be unjust or unfairly applied. This scenario, known as jury nullification, occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law. Jury nullification has a long history, notably in cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act, alcohol prohibition, and drug laws. While it can be seen as a way for jurors to voice their opposition to perceived unfair laws, it also raises ethical concerns about the integrity of the legal system. The power of jurors to nullify a law is a contentious issue, with some arguing that it undermines the democratic process, while others defend it as a check against unjust laws.

Jury nullification

The history of jury nullification can be traced back to colonial America, where juries used this practice to protest against British rule by acquitting defendants. A notable example is the Fugitive Slave Act, where juries refused to convict people who assisted runaway slaves or were fugitive slaves themselves. In the late 17th century, the court's power to punish juries was removed in Bushel's Case, which involved a juror on the case against William Penn, who was accused of illegally preaching a Quaker sermon. Despite the judge's demands for a guilty verdict, the jury acquitted Penn and Mead, asserting their power to nullify the law.

In modern times, discussions around jury nullification often centre on drug laws, which some consider unjust or discriminatory. For instance, in the case of Touray Cornell, charged with marijuana possession, potential jurors expressed reluctance to convict due to the small amount involved. This led to a deal where the defendant didn't admit guilt, effectively nullifying the law. While jury nullification can be seen as a way to oppose unjust laws, critics worry that it could permit violence against socially unpopular groups.

The role of judges and attorneys in jury nullification is also contentious. Judges often instruct juries to act as "finders of fact," determining the evidence's veracity and applying it to the law, without questioning the law itself. However, advocates of jury nullification criticise these instructions. Additionally, there is debate over whether judges can remove or punish jurors who refuse to apply the law as instructed. While it is generally agreed that prosecutors cannot seek jury nullification, there is disagreement on whether defendants should be allowed to do so.

Juror's right to nullify

Jury nullification is a juror's right to refuse to enforce a law they believe to be unjust or unfairly applied to the defendant. It is also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict in the United Kingdom. Jury nullification allows jurors to return a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant broke the law. This can occur because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts.

The history of jury nullification can be traced back to the 17th century when four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to find William Penn and William Mead guilty of illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace. Despite the judge's demands for a guilty verdict, the jury acquitted Penn and Mead. This incident, known as Bushel's Case, was a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification, as it established that judges could not punish jurors for their verdicts.

In the United States, the First Amendment right to free speech protects discussions about jury nullification. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that it is perfectly constitutional to talk about jury nullification and that the government cannot ban speech simply because it disagrees with it. However, there have been instances of activists being arrested for informing jurors of their right to jury nullification, with some being charged with jury tampering.

Jury nullification is a controversial topic. Some view it as an important safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government overreach, while others see it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. Judges also retain the right to decide sentences and disregard "not guilty" verdicts, acting as a check against potential abuses by juries.

Judge's power to remove jurors

Judges have the power to remove jurors for a variety of reasons, including personal circumstances, misconduct, or actions that impair their ability to perform their duty. This removal can occur at any point after a criminal trial starts if a juror is disqualified or unable to continue serving.

One reason for removal is if a juror has personal circumstances that make it impossible to continue their jury service. This could include illness, work conflicts, a death in the family, extreme anxiety or stress, or economic hardship. Judges have a lot of leeway in deciding whether to remove a juror in these circumstances, but there must be factual evidence and a valid legal reason related to the integrity of the judicial process.

Another reason for removal is if a juror engages in misconduct or other actions that impair their ability to perform their duties. This could include inattention or sleeping during the trial, disobeying court instructions (such as using cell phones or bringing outside information into the jury room), absence or lateness that interferes with the proceedings, or refusal to deliberate.

In the context of jury nullification, where a jury gives a verdict of not guilty even though they believe a defendant has broken the law, judges may also remove jurors "'for cause' if they refuse to apply the law as instructed. Jury nullification can be based on the belief that a law is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, that the punishment is too harsh, or due to general frustrations with the criminal justice system. While there is debate over whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify, judges currently have the power to penalize those who attempt to present a nullification argument and to declare a mistrial if such an argument has been made.

In summary, judges have the power to remove jurors for a range of reasons, including personal circumstances, misconduct, or refusal to apply the law as instructed. These removals are intended to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Punishment for juror nullification

Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict, refers to a jury's deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. The jury may do this to send a message about a social issue or because the result dictated by law contradicts their sense of justice, morality, or fairness. In other words, the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant broke the law.

While jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, it is a logical consequence of two rules: jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict, and a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense. In the United States, there are differing perspectives on the role and basis of jury nullification. Some view jury nullification as a right, while others argue that it undermines the integrity of the justice system.

The punishment for jurors who engage in nullification varies across jurisdictions. In the United States, there have been instances of activists being arrested and charged with jury tampering or jury scattering for attempting to inform jurors about their power to nullify. However, rulings have also stated that arresting people for informing jurors about their power to nullify is unconstitutional.

In the United Kingdom, the court's power to punish juries for nullification was historically exercised, as seen in the case of Bushel's Case in the late 17th century, where jurors who refused to find William Penn and William Mead guilty were imprisoned and fined. However, Chief Justice Vaughan later released the jurors, forbidding judges from punishing jurors for their verdicts. This marked a significant shift in the court's approach to punishing jurors for nullification.

The ethical dilemma posed by jury nullification revolves around democratic self-government and integrity. While some argue that jurors should not be informed of their power to nullify, others contend that it is a necessary check on unjust laws.

Jury's verdict and the law

In a criminal case, a jury's verdict is its formal finding of fact on matters submitted to it by a judge. The jury first finds the facts, as proved by the evidence, then applies the law as instructed by the court, and finally returns a verdict that settles the case. A general verdict is when the jury makes a single conclusion on all issues presented, whereas a special verdict is when the jury makes specific factual conclusions. In the United States, a jury's verdict must be unanimous.

A jury's verdict is distinct from a judge's ruling. In a bench trial, a judge's decision is referred to as a finding. In the United States, a judge may not direct a verdict of guilty under any circumstances, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defence and have a jury determine guilt or innocence. In England and Wales, the equivalent motion is known as a motion of no case to answer.

Jury nullification is when a jury in a criminal trial returns a verdict of not guilty, even though they believe a defendant has broken the law. This may be because they believe the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. While there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law, there are several ethical and legal issues raised by jury nullification. For example, whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify, whether a judge may remove jurors who refuse to apply the law as instructed, and whether a judge may punish a juror for practicing jury nullification.

Frequently asked questions