The Power Of Jurors: Can They Alter Existing Laws?

While juries are not supposed to change the law, they can technically do so through a process called jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict even though they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. This can be due to a variety of reasons, such as believing that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Jury nullification has been used throughout history to oppose unjust laws, such as those that penalized runaway slaves or prohibited alcohol consumption. While it is not an official part of criminal procedure, jury nullification highlights the tension between democratic self-government and integrity, and raises ethical questions about the role and power of juries in the legal system.

Jury nullification

The jury's reasons for nullification may include a belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, that the punishment is too harsh, or that there are general frustrations with the criminal justice system. It has been used to oppose laws that were perceived as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, alcohol prohibition, and the criminalization of draft evasion during the Vietnam War. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

There are differing perspectives on jury nullification. Some view it as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny, while others see it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. Some states, like California, have decided that their trial juries do not have the right to refuse to apply the law. The main ethical issue is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. While prosecutors cannot seek jury nullification, it is unclear if defendants should be allowed to do so.

Jury's power to nullify

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 has broken the law. This can be due to a range of reasons, such as a belief that the law is unjust, the prosecutor has misapplied the law, the punishment is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Jury nullification has been used historically to oppose laws perceived as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, alcohol prohibition during Prohibition, and the criminalization of draft evasion during the Vietnam War.

While jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, it arises from two rules: jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned. This combination allows juries to effectively nullify a law, particularly if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated prosecutions of a particular offence, indicating public opposition to the law.

The ethical implications of jury nullification are a subject of debate. On the one hand, it can be seen as a right of the jury, allowing them to send a message about social issues or act according to their sense of justice, morality, or fairness. On the other hand, it contradicts the jury's duty to base their verdict solely on the law and the facts of the case. Additionally, it raises questions about whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify and whether judges can remove or punish jurors who refuse to apply the law as instructed.

Jury nullification has a long history, dating back to common law courts in England in the 12th century. It was also used in colonial America to protest British rule by acquitting defendants. Jury nullification has been a factor in various notable cases, such as R. v. Latimer in Canada, where the Supreme Court discussed the duty of the presiding justice to prevent it, and Sparf v. United States in California, where it was decided that the jury did not have the right to refuse to apply the law.

Judge's removal of jurors

Judges can remove jurors for a variety of reasons, including personal circumstances, misconduct, or actions that impair their ability to perform their duty. The removal of jurors by judges is a discretionary act and is not a legally sanctioned function, but it is done to preserve the integrity and reliability of the judicial process.

Personal Circumstances

Judges may remove jurors due to personal circumstances that make it difficult for them to continue serving. These circumstances can include illness, work conflicts, economic hardship, extreme anxiety, stress, or a death in the family. Judges have leeway in making these decisions, but they must be supported by factual evidence and a valid legal reason related to the integrity of the judicial process.

Misconduct or Impaired Performance

Jurors can also be disqualified or removed for misconduct or behaviour that affects their ability to perform their duties. This includes inattention or sleeping during significant portions of the trial, disobeying court instructions (such as using cell phones or bringing outside information), absence or lateness that disrupts proceedings, and refusal to deliberate.

Jury Nullification

An important aspect to consider in the context of judges' removal of jurors is the concept of jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when a jury deliberately rejects evidence or refuses to apply the law because they believe the law itself is unjust or the punishment is too harsh. While jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, it raises ethical concerns about the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Judges may remove jurors "for cause" if they refuse to apply the law as instructed, which could be considered a form of jury nullification.

Alternate Jurors

After removing a juror, judges have several options to continue the trial. They may replace the removed juror with an alternate juror, continue with a smaller jury, or declare a mistrial. The decision depends on the availability of alternate jurors and the stage of the trial.

Judge's punishment of jurors

A jury's nullification of a law, or a "perverse verdict", is when a jury in a criminal trial gives a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that a defendant has broken the law. This can occur due to a variety of reasons, such as a belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. 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.

Historically, the power to punish juries was removed in Bushel's Case in the late 17th century. In this case, a juror on the trial of William Penn refused to find him guilty, and despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury acquitted Penn. In another case, R. v. Shipley (1784), Lord Mansfield, sitting as a judge, disparaged the practice of jury nullification, stating that the jury who "usurp the judicature of law" are "wrong" even if they happen to be right.

In the United States, there have been differing opinions on jury nullification. In Sparf and Hansen v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court held that juries had a duty to apply the law as set out by the trial judge. However, in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the Supreme Court directed a jury that while they would ordinarily follow the judge's directions, they could not be compelled to do so. During the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks, which some scholars attributed to jury selection rather than nullification.

In terms of judges' punishments of jurors, there have been instances where judges have attempted to sanction jurors for their verdicts or for practicing jury nullification. However, it is established that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts, and any punishment in this regard would be considered a form of contempt or imprisonment.

Judge overturning a jury's verdict

A jury's verdict can be overturned by a judge in certain situations. While judges are generally reluctant to overturn a jury's verdict, they are permitted to do so in cases where there is clear evidence that raises reasonable doubt or where there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. In the United States, a judge's decision to overturn a guilty verdict is based on the determination that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict based on the evidence presented. This is known as a "judgment of acquittal" or a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict." However, it is important to note that a judge cannot overturn a jury's "not guilty" verdict as it would violate the defendant's constitutional rights, including the 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy and the 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury.

The concept of jury nullification, where a jury returns a “not guilty” verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law, has been a subject of debate. Jury nullification can occur when the jury believes that the law itself is unjust, the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or the punishment is too harsh. While jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, it is a discretionary act that has been used to oppose unjust laws throughout history, such as the Fugitive Slave Act and alcohol prohibition laws.

In some cases, judges have the authority to remove jurors or declare a mistrial if legal arguments are made to the jury. Additionally, there is a question of whether judges should be allowed to inform or instruct juries about their power to nullify. This raises ethical concerns about the tension between democratic self-government and the integrity of the judicial system.

While a judge can overturn a jury's guilty verdict in specific circumstances, it is an unusual occurrence. Judges must have a legitimate reason to interfere with the jury's decision-making process, and they are cautious about exercising this power to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

Frequently asked questions