Jury Nullification: When Law And Verdict Diverge

Jury nullification is a discretionary act where a jury may choose to convict or acquit a defendant by ignoring the letter of the law. This may occur because the jury disagrees with the law, believes it to be unjust, or sympathizes with the defendant. Jury nullification has a long history in American law, with colonial juries ignoring British law to acquit dissidents. While some view jury nullification as a right, others argue that it is inconsistent with the jury's duty to follow the law and facts of the case. Judges may also go to lengths to prevent jury nullification and retain the right to overrule guilty verdicts.

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 they have general frustrations with the criminal justice system. It has been used historically to oppose laws that were seen as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition, and the criminalization of draft evasion during the Vietnam War. Jury nullification can also occur in civil suits, where the verdict is a finding of liability or lack thereof, rather than guilt or innocence.

Some see jury nullification as 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. There is also a concern that it could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. In some cases, a "stealth juror" may intentionally seek to be part of a jury to nullify the law.

Judges' power to overrule

A jury's verdict cannot be overturned by the court, and the jury cannot get into legal trouble for their verdict. This is called jury nullification, where juries disregard the law and the judge's instructions in rendering their verdict.

In civil trials, judges overruling juries is common, and there is even a term for it: JNOV. In criminal cases, the judge may almost never set aside a verdict of acquittal. There is only one case in the US where this happened, and it was a bench trial with no jury.

In a civil trial, a judge can override any decision by the jury if they find that no reasonable jury would have reached that decision. There must have been a prior motion for judgment as a matter of law for the judge to do this. Overruling a jury's verdict in a criminal case is more difficult because of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. A verdict of "not guilty" cannot be overturned, while a verdict of "guilty" can be overturned through procedures other than the trial judge overriding the jury's decision.

A judge may also declare a mistrial if the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty". The prosecution may then choose to retry the case.

Jury's reasons for nullification

Jury nullification refers to a jury's deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. While jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, it is the logical consequence of two rules: jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and a Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned.

Jurors may nullify a verdict for several reasons:

• The belief that the law itself is unjust. For example, jurors have historically nullified verdicts in cases pertaining to the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition, and the Vietnam War.
• The belief that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case.
• The belief that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. For example, a jury may convict a defendant on a lesser charge to avoid a harsh mandatory minimum sentence.
• General frustrations with the criminal justice system, such as racial disparities. For example, a jury composed mostly of African Americans may choose to nullify a verdict in a nonviolent drug case involving a young Black man.

Prosecutorial nullification

Jury nullification refers to a jury's deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. This can occur because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict and jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts. While jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, juries have a de facto power to nullify the law.

The concept of prosecutorial nullification raises questions about the legitimacy of a single actor rendering inert a democratically enacted law. Local elections can be a solution to this issue, as they provide a mechanism for prosecutors to tie their actions to the will of the electorate. However, unilateral prosecutorial negation of the law may still be seen as suspect, even when justified by popular sanction.

There are differing perspectives on the role and basis of jury and prosecutorial nullification in the American legal system. While some view jury nullification as a right, there are examples of people being punished for disseminating information about it. Similarly, while prosecutorial nullification can be seen as a way to uphold democratic values, it can also be seen as a unilateral negation of democratically enacted laws.

Stealth jurors

A "stealth juror" or “rogue juror” is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda, attempts to be seated on a jury to influence the outcome. Stealth jurors are individuals who profess neutrality while concealing their biases. They attempt to “fly under the radar” during the jury selection process, or voir dire, by distorting the truth or lying.

Legal scholars believe that lawyers can identify stealth jurors by paying close attention to non-verbal behaviour connected with deception and identifying discrepancies between answers to oral voir dire and written questionnaires. Other methods for identifying stealth jurors include rigorous research on jurors during voir dire, including survey work and the use of a juror questionnaire. Another method is to determine bias indirectly by uncovering "correlates" of bias, or pre-existing characteristics associated with a prospective juror's adverse predisposition toward a party in a lawsuit. For example, an individual who asserts neutrality but lives near the site of the incident, has read numerous articles about the case, or knows the plaintiffs should be suspected as a potential stealth juror.

In some cases, stealth jurors are uncovered after the trial, through interviews or media appearances in which they reveal previously undisclosed sources of bias. In other cases, stealth jurors are not identified until years later. For example, in 2008, a judge dismissed a juror in a "gang murder" trial who was found to have falsely denied her gang affiliation on a jury selection questionnaire.

The potential for stealth jurors to nullify laws has prompted calls to eliminate the requirement of a unanimous verdict in jury trials. On the other hand, some argue that stealth jurors can serve as a defence against bad laws.

Frequently asked questions