Juror's Dilemma: Stupid Law, Smart Verdict?

The concept of jury nullification refers to when a jury in a criminal trial returns a not guilty verdict, even if they believe the defendant broke the law. This can occur when jurors believe the law is unjust, the punishment is too harsh, or out of frustration with the criminal justice system. While some view this as a violation of the right to a jury trial, others argue that a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict. In practice, jurors are extremely unlikely to be held in contempt for their verdict, even if justified. Jury nullification can also occur in civil suits, and in some countries like Canada, juries have the power to refuse to apply the law based on conscience.

Jury nullification

There are differing perspectives on jury nullification. Some see it as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial, which undermines the law. In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while others view the oath as requiring the nullification of unjust law.

Juror misconduct

Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict, occurs when a jury in a criminal trial returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This may be due to a belief that the law is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, that the punishment is too harsh, or out of general frustration with the criminal justice system. While jury nullification can be seen as a violation of the right to a jury trial, it is also seen by some as a body charged with judging both the law and the facts of the case.

Jury nullification is distinct from juror misconduct, which can take many forms. Juror misconduct can include disobedience to instructions, inappropriate communication with court personnel, third parties, or other jurors, contact with extraneous reading materials or inadmissible evidence, race or ethnic prejudice, improper jury deliberations, and official misconduct by bailiffs, judges, or other court personnel. For example, in State v. Pierce, a juror was found in criminal contempt for willfully violating the judge's instruction not to do any research on their own. In another case, State v. Pridgen, during a recess, a juror got inside a wooden crate where officers were hidden during a sting to see how good their view was. While this was considered juror misconduct, it was not deemed prejudicial and therefore did not warrant a mistrial or reversal.

In cases of juror misconduct, the trial judge must investigate the allegations, make findings, and determine if misconduct occurred and if it resulted in prejudice. The appropriate remedy depends on the nature of the misconduct and may include cautionary instructions, contempt or censure, removing and replacing the juror, declaring a mistrial, or ordering a new trial. Jurors found guilty of misconduct may be cited for contempt and may be liable for imprisonment and disqualification from further service.

Judges' instructions

Jury instructions, also known as charges or directions, are a set of legal guidelines given by a judge to a jury in a court of law. They are typically delivered after closing arguments, but sometimes may be delivered mid-trial if necessary. The judge will explain the law that applies to the case, and the jury must apply that law to the facts as they have heard them in arriving at their verdict. The jury must follow the law as the judge states it to them and can ask questions if they don't understand. Jury instructions are drafted using standardized language and templates, which are modified to fit the unique circumstances and legal issues of each case. They cover the trial process, the roles of the judge, jury, attorneys, and witnesses, and the importance of the jury's role in the legal system.

Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict, is when a jury in a criminal trial gives a "not guilty" verdict even though they think the defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, that the punishment is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is a logical consequence of the rule that jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict. In most modern Western legal systems, judges instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact", applying the evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict without questioning the law itself.

There is much debate surrounding jury nullification. Some see it as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny, while others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law. Some critics argue that if juries have the power of jury nullification, then they should be informed of it during jury instructions. Others maintain that defendants should be judged according to the law, and that jury nullification interferes with this process. There are concerns that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions, or that a jury may convict a defendant who has not broken the law. However, judges retain the right to disregard guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries.

In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath as unlawful, while others believe that the oath's reference to "deliverance" requires the nullification of unjust law. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that juries have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. In the US, members of Congress have also voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for instructing a jury against nullification, viewing the jury as a body charged with judging both law and fact.

Hung juries

A hung jury occurs when a jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty. In this instance, the judge will declare a mistrial, and the prosecution may or may not choose to retry the case.

In the United States, a hung jury results in a mistrial in criminal cases. In civil cases, a hung jury can occur if there is a tied vote after three hours of deliberation. In the United Kingdom, majority verdicts have been allowed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1967, with at least 10 votes out of 12 needed for a valid majority verdict. In Scotland, it is not possible to have a hung jury in criminal cases as verdicts are decided by a simple majority of eight jurors.

The concept of jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict, is when a jury returns a not guilty verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This may occur due to a belief that the law is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment is too harsh. Jury nullification can be viewed as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. However, others argue that the oath's reference to "deliverance" implies the nullification of unjust laws.

The introduction of supermajority verdicts has been proposed to address the challenges presented by hung juries. This would allow juries to convict defendants without requiring unanimous agreement, thereby addressing the issue of 'rogue jurors' who unreasonably obstruct the course of justice. On the other hand, opponents argue that this undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and increases the likelihood of convicting innocent individuals.

Jury selection

The jury selection process begins with a summons for a panel of prospective jurors when a jury trial is required. These individuals are randomly selected from counties within the district. During the selection process, the judge and attorneys question the potential jurors to assess their suitability for the case at hand. This phase is known as voir dire, and it helps determine which jurors will be chosen for the trial and whether any should be excused or exempted. The attorneys can also exclude a limited number of jurors without providing a reason, known as peremptory challenges.

Juror's Power to Nullify:

While jurors are expected to follow the judge's instructions and apply the law as given, a concept known as "jury nullification" exists. This occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict, even if they believe the defendant broke the law, often due to a disagreement with the law itself or a belief that the punishment is too harsh. In the United States, this power of jurors has been a topic of debate, with some viewing it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors and the right to a jury trial. However, others argue that the oath's reference to "deliverance" implies a nullification of unjust laws.

Jury Deliberations and Verdict:

During the trial, the jury's role is to determine the facts of the case based on the evidence presented to them. At the end of the trial, the judge instructs the jury on the applicable law, and the jury is responsible for reaching a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot agree unanimously, a hung jury may result, leading to a potential mistrial.

The jury selection process aims to ensure a fair and impartial jury. While jurors are expected to follow the law as instructed by the judge, the concept of jury nullification highlights the power of jurors to return a Not Guilty verdict if they disagree with the law or believe it to be unjust. This power has been both criticized and defended in the US legal system.

Frequently asked questions