Keith Mack
Jury nullification refers to a jury's rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. This can occur because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses and jurors are protected from punishment for their verdicts. Jury nullification has been used to oppose laws that jurors perceive as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition, or the criminalization of draft evasion during the Vietnam War. However, it has also been used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. While some view jury nullification as a right, others see it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Jury nullification | A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law |
| Reasons for jury nullification | To send a message about a social issue, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness |
| Jury's power | A jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses |
| Jury's protection | A jury cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict |
| Double jeopardy | A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense |
| Jury's verdict | A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it |
| Jury's oath | Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors |
| Jury nullification in civil suits | Jury nullification may occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability |
| Jury nullification in Canada | The Supreme Court discussed jury nullification and indicated that it is a duty of the presiding justice to try to prevent it from occurring |
| Jury nullification in California | The California trial jury does not have the right to refuse to apply the law |
What You'll Learn
Jury nullification
However, others view jury nullification as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors and their duty to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence. There are fears that it could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions or convict defendants who have not broken the law. Judges retain the right to disregard guilty verdicts in such cases.
Santa Barbara Bike Laws: Time for Change?
You may want to see also
The right to a trial by jury
The jury system is designed to be distinct from the judges or court, with the jury tasked with finding the truth of disputed facts and making a "right judgement". The right to a trial by jury is considered a fundamental part of democracy and a check against potential government overreach and abuse.
Despite the right to a trial by jury, the concept of jury nullification refers to a jury's deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. This can occur when a jury wants to send a message about a social issue or when the verdict dictated by law contradicts the jury's sense of justice. Jury nullification is not officially recognised in criminal procedure, but it is a logical consequence of rules such as juror protection from punishment for verdicts and the prohibition on retrying an acquitted defendant.
While jury nullification can serve as a protection against oppressive laws, it is not without controversy. Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence. Judges also retain the right to disregard guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries.
Citizens' Power: Can We Repeal a Law?
You may want to see also
Juror's oath
The concept of a jury ignoring the letter of the law is known as jury nullification. This is where a jury knowingly and deliberately rejects evidence or refuses to apply the law. This may be because the jury wants to send a message about a social issue or because the verdict dictated by law goes against the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but it can be seen as the logical consequence of two rules: jurors cannot be punished for incorrect verdicts and, in many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence.
The oath taken by jurors varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, jurors usually swear to "well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and [the defendant], and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help me God". In the United Kingdom, the Oaths Act 1978 applies to jurors' oaths, and jurors can choose to swear an oath on the New Testament or Old Testament, or to affirm. In Canada, each juror has the choice to take either an oath or affirmation, with the oath being: "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 New Zealand, the oath is: "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?". In Australia, the format of the oath differs between states. In New South Wales, the oath is: "...well and truly try and true deliverance make between our Sovereign Lady the Queen [or the King] and the accused whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give according to the evidence." In Western Australia, jurors have the choice to "swear by Almighty God" or "solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm" to "give a true verdict according to the evidence upon the issues to be tried by me". In Queensland, each juror has a choice for an Oath or Affirmation. The Oath is as follows: "You will conscientiously try the charges and decide them according to evidence. You will not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberations other than as allowed or required by law. So help you God."
Trustee Theft: Can Trustees Legally Take Trust Money?
You may want to see also
Jury tampering
Jury nullification refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. This can occur because a not-guilty verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts. However, jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure and is considered a violation of the oath sworn by jurors.
The specific elements of jury tampering statutes vary by jurisdiction. Some states define jury tampering solely in terms of bribery, threats, or physical detainment of a juror, while others use a "`communication and intent` basis, considering any communication with the intent to influence a juror as jury tampering. In federal courts, even an attempt to influence a juror is sufficient to break the law, and prosecutors may also charge individuals with related crimes such as contempt or violations of laws pertaining to the administration of justice.
To address jury tampering, the Supreme Court in Remmer v. United States held that jury tampering in criminal cases is presumptively prejudicial. This means that the accused party bears the burden of proving that there is no reasonable possibility that the tampering affected the jury's impartiality. Additionally, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in Great Britain allows for non-jury trials when there is a risk or occurrence of jury tampering.
Understanding Passenger Rights: Can They Be Detained?
You may want to see also
The role of judges in the jury process
The judge plays a crucial role in the jury process, from the selection of jurors to instructing them on the applicable laws and ensuring a fair trial. Firstly, during the jury selection process, known as voir dire, the judge collaborates with the attorneys to choose impartial jurors. The judge asks questions to identify and eliminate potentially biased jurors, ensuring a fair and unbiased jury.
Secondly, the judge is responsible for providing legal instructions to the jury. After the closing arguments, the judge "charges the jury" by informing them of the relevant laws and the criteria for reaching a verdict. The judge ensures that jurors understand the legal principles they must apply during deliberations. If the jury has any questions about the law during deliberations, they must submit a written query to the judge, who will address it in the presence of all parties.
Additionally, the judge plays a pivotal role in evidentiary rulings. They decide which pieces of evidence can be considered by the jury, ensuring that the defendant's rights are protected. The judge rules on objections raised by attorneys during the trial, determining whether certain evidence can be included or excluded from the case. This maintains the integrity of the trial process and prevents unfair prejudice.
Moreover, the judge has the authority to overrule a jury's guilty verdict, acting as a check against any potential miscarriages of justice. In some cases, judges have the discretion to disregard a jury's decision and impose a different sentence or outcome. This power serves as a safeguard against unjust verdicts.
While jury nullification, or the jury's deliberate rejection of evidence or law, is not officially sanctioned, judges are responsible for trying to prevent it. Jury nullification can occur when jurors believe a law is unjust or want to send a social message. However, judges are tasked with mitigating this possibility, as it can undermine the legal system's consistency and fairness.
Demorgans Law: Probability Theory Application
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law.
Some examples of jury nullification include the rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition laws. In the modern era, jury nullification is most common in drug cases, where some jurors refuse to convict on drug possession charges due to their beliefs or feelings about the law.
The implications of jury nullification can vary. Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors, while others see it as a right. In some cases, jury nullification can lead to gross inequities and permit violence against socially unpopular factions. On the other hand, it can also be seen as a protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law.
A "not guilty" verdict reached through jury nullification cannot be overturned, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. However, a conviction reached via nullification can be overturned on appeal or voided by a judge in some jurisdictions.
The role of a trial jury is to act as a fact finder and evaluate the evidence presented at trial. The jury is supposed to apply the law to that evidence and reach a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury is not supposed to decide what the law is or what it should be.
