Jurors' Dilemma: Legality Of The Law?

The concept of jury nullification is a source of much debate. It occurs when jurors believe in the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but choose to acquit them, often due to a disagreement with the law in question. While some view this as an important safeguard against wrongful imprisonment, others argue it undermines the law and the right to a jury trial. Jurors are expected to make decisions based on the facts of a case and apply the law as instructed by the judge. However, in some instances, jurors may choose to disregard these instructions and acquit a defendant they believe to be innocent, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. This raises the question: can a juror determine the legality of the law?

Jury nullification

The debate surrounding jury nullification centres around the role and responsibilities of juries. While judges often instruct juries to act as "finders of fact", determining the evidence's veracity and applying it to the law, advocates of jury nullification criticise these instructions, arguing that juries should also be able to question the law itself. The ethical tension lies between democratic self-government and the integrity of the justice system.

Juror removal for cause

The concept of "jury nullification" refers to when a jury in a criminal trial finds a defendant not guilty, even if they believe the defendant broke the law. This may occur because the jury believes the law is unjust, the punishment is too harsh, or out of general frustration with the criminal justice system. While jury nullification is a source of debate, it is clear that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.

Jury nullification is distinct from juror removal "for cause", which refers to the removal of a juror by a judge during a trial. This removal can occur for several reasons, including when a juror refuses to deliberate, engages in misconduct, or is disqualified due to personal circumstances or bias. Judges have discretion in deciding whether to remove a juror, but their decisions must be supported by factual evidence and valid legal reasons that preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Juror removal "for cause" can occur when a juror refuses to deliberate or engage in jury deliberations. This may be due to having strong feelings or preconceived opinions that impair their ability to be fair, consider the evidence, and apply the law. In such cases, judges may find jurors in contempt of court if their actions directly violate court orders. Some states consider juror misconduct as obstruction of justice, which can carry criminal penalties.

Additionally, judges can remove jurors "for cause" due to personal circumstances that make it impossible to continue serving. These circumstances may include illness, work conflicts, a death in the family, extreme anxiety or stress, or economic hardship.

During the jury selection process, attorneys may request the removal of a juror "for cause" if they believe the juror is unable to render a fair and impartial verdict. An example could be a potential juror in a murder case who states that they would always sentence a defendant to death if found guilty, indicating a bias against non-death penalty sentences. In such cases, the removal request must state a specific reason and be granted by the trial judge, with both attorneys and the judge having the opportunity to question the juror.

In summary, juror removal "for cause" is a process that allows judges and attorneys to dismiss jurors who are unable to perform their duties fairly and impartially due to personal circumstances, misconduct, or bias. This process aims to ensure the integrity of the judicial system by providing a fair trial for both the prosecution and the defence.

Punishment for nullification

Jury nullification is a highly debated topic, with some arguing that it is a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny, while others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. The punishment for jury nullification is a complex issue, as there is a fine line between upholding the integrity of the judicial system and respecting the independence of jurors.

In the United States, the punishment for jury nullification is not clearly defined, and it is generally accepted that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury, and this includes the jury's power to nullify. While judges may disagree with the jury's verdict, they typically do not have the authority to punish jurors for exercising their judgment.

However, there have been rare cases where government officials, such as judges or prosecutors, have attempted to punish jurors for considering or openly practising jury nullification. In the case of People v. Brannon in Colorado, Laura Kriho, a lone holdout juror in a drug-related case, was initially charged with three counts of contempt of court. Two of the charges, including one for discussing nullification, were later withdrawn, and she received no legal punishment. This case demonstrates the difficulty in punishing jurors for nullification, as it involves balancing the integrity of the judicial process with the independence of jurors.

In another case, U.S. v. Krzyske, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the doctrine of jury nullification, suggesting that nullification is not a right that jurors can claim as a defence for their actions. Nonetheless, the punishment for jurors in this context remains unclear and highly contested.

The early history of juries in common law courts in England supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community, providing a means of dispute resolution with a degree of legitimacy. This historical context further complicates the issue of punishment for nullification, as it highlights the long-standing tradition of jury independence.

In summary, while the punishment for jury nullification is not clearly defined, it is generally accepted that jurors cannot be formally punished for their verdicts. Rare attempts to punish jurors have largely been unsuccessful, and the judicial system tends to uphold the independence of jurors. However, the complex nature of jury nullification and its potential impact on the judicial process continue to fuel debates about the appropriate response to jurors who exercise their power to nullify.

Outside influence on jurors

While jurors are expected to decide cases based only on the evidence before them, outside influence on jurors is a pervasive issue. This can take the form of jury tampering, where people communicate with jurors about the substance of the case, or juror misconduct, such as discussing the case with individuals outside the courtroom. In some cases, jurors themselves might seek to influence the outcome of a trial, a practice known as jury nullification.

Jury tampering often involves bribing or threatening jurors to decide a case in a particular way. More subtle tactics include leaving anonymous notes or photographs and providing information excluded from the trial. When jury tampering occurs, the judge may declare a mistrial and grant the defendant a new trial. However, proving illegal influence on a juror can be challenging, and courts generally avoid investigating a jury's verdict or deliberations. For instance, while a juror can testify about external communications, their thought processes and discussions within the jury are typically off-limits.

Outside social factors and stressors can also influence jurors' understanding of the evidence and their decision-making process. These factors may cause jurors to become distracted, emotionally charged, or more susceptible to heuristic or experiential information processing, leading them to rely on initial reactions and mental shortcuts rather than carefully considering all the evidence. Additionally, jurors' pre-existing beliefs, attitudes, experiences, and personality types can shape how they interpret information and determine the outcome of a case.

Jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite believing in their guilt, often due to a disagreement with the applicable law or a belief that the punishment is too harsh. While some view it as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment, others criticise it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. Jury nullification has a long history, including the famous case of John Peter Zenger in 1735, where jurors ignored instructions and returned a not-guilty verdict for seditious libel. While the legality of jury nullification is debated, some judges forbid its mention in court, and defence attorneys cannot instruct juries to ignore the judge's legal instructions.

Jurors' oaths

A juror's oath is a pledge made by jurors before serving on a trial. The oath is administered by a judge or clerk, to whom the jurors face with raised right hands. The oath usually includes a promise to try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.

In the United States, a federal juror's oath typically includes swearing by God and delivering a true verdict "so help me God". For example, in New York, the oath is:

> Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and [defendant's name], the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?

In other countries, the oath may differ slightly. For instance, in New Zealand, the oath is:

> Members of the jury: Do each of you swear by Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?

Similarly, in Canada, the oath/affirmation is:

> Do you swear to well and truly try and true deliverance make between our sovereign lady the Queen, and the accused at the bar, who you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence, so help you God?

In the United Kingdom, jury nullification (when a jury gives a "not guilty" verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law) is also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict. This can occur when jurors believe a law to be unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment is too harsh. While some view jury nullification as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment, others see it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors.

Frequently asked questions