Jury Nullification: Can A Law Be Overturned?

Jury nullification is a discretionary act that occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This can happen when jurors believe that the law is unjust or has been misapplied, or when they disagree with the punishment. While jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function, it is protected by the secrecy of jury deliberations and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts. It has been used throughout history to protest laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act and alcohol prohibition laws, and continues to be a topic of debate in the legal system.

Jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and it is not a legally sanctioned function. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The counsel is also not allowed to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. 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 occur because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned, and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts.

In California, Judge Jan Goldsmith requested an opinion on jury nullification, and the decision was that the California trial jury did not have the right to refuse to apply the law. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court case Kleinman v. United States. Jury nullification can be considered a violation of the jury's duty to apply the law as instructed by the judge. It can undermine the integrity of the legal system and create uncertainty.

The main ethical issue with jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, so defendants should not be allowed to either. However, for prosecutors to nullify a law, they would have to negate the presumption of innocence. There is a historical basis for jury nullification, such as juries in colonial America using it to protest British rule by acquitting defendants.

Jury nullification can occur in civil trials, and if the jury's verdict is clearly against the evidence, the judge can order a new trial. Jury nullification can also have a de facto effect of invalidating a law if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offense. This can indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. Jury nullification has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act and alcohol prohibition.

Jury nullification and democratic self-government

Jury nullification is a discretionary act that refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law. It is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, and as such, it is considered inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. Jury nullification has been a source of much debate, with some arguing that it is an important 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 main ethical issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. While prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, defendants are also not permitted to seek it. However, for a prosecutor to nullify a law, they would need to negate the presumption of innocence. In this context, prosecutorial nullification is typically defined as declining to prosecute.

The historical basis for jury nullification can be traced back to colonial America, where juries used it to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. Another example is the Fugitive Slave Clause passed by Congress in the 1800s, which compelled citizens to assist law enforcement in apprehending runaway slaves. Abolitionists used the jury system to protest and refused to convict people under these laws. Similarly, during the Vietnam War, some juries refused to convict those accused of draft evasion, as they believed the law to be unjust.

Jury nullification can have a significant impact on the enforcement of laws. If a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, it can effectively invalidate the law. This indicates public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. However, it is important to note that jury nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, and judges may declare a mistrial or overturn verdicts if legal arguments are made in the presence of the jury.

Jury nullification in drug cases

Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty but do not deserve punishment. In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. Jury nullification can be considered a tool to fight injustices in the war on drugs.

In the war on drugs, there is a growing recognition that today's drug laws are ineffective and unfair, especially when used against low-income individuals and people of color. Jury nullification can be used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws. For example, in Montana, a group of five prospective jurors expressed reservations about convicting someone for felony possession of a small amount of marijuana. This led to concerns among prosecutors about securing convictions in similar cases.

Another example is the case of Touray Cornell, a man from Missoula, Montana, who was charged with possessing a tiny amount of marijuana in a county that had made marijuana enforcement a low priority. During jury selection, only five out of 27 potential jurors said they would vote to convict, leading to a deal where the defendant didn't admit guilt.

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States, dating back to colonial times when juries used it to protest British rule. It has been used in various notable cases, including those involving alcohol prohibition, the Fugitive Slave Act, and assisted suicide.

While jury nullification can be seen as a way to address perceived injustices, it also raises ethical concerns about the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that it undermines the jury's duty to render a verdict based solely on the law and facts of the case. Additionally, there are differing perspectives on whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify and whether jurors can be punished for practicing jury nullification.

Jury nullification and the role of judges

Jury nullification is a discretionary act and not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It 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 occur because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts. Jury nullification is considered inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

The role of judges in jury nullification is complex and has evolved over time. In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford, the U.S. Supreme Court directed a jury that while they were expected to follow the judge's directions, they could not be compelled to do so. However, by the middle of the 19th century, some judges sought to distance themselves from this position, asserting that it was the judge's role to interpret the law and the jury's duty to follow these interpretations. This was reinforced by the 1895 Supreme Court case of Sparf and Hansen v. United States, which held that juries had a duty to apply the law as set out by the trial judge.

Despite this, judges do not have the explicit power to punish jurors for practicing jury nullification. However, judges can declare a mistrial if they believe that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict or if legal arguments are made in the presence of the jury. Additionally, in civil trials, judges can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial if the jury's verdict is clearly at odds with the evidence.

In some cases, judges have actively encouraged jury nullification, particularly in situations where the judge disagrees with the law in question. For example, during the Vietnam War era, judges allowed defendants to discuss their motives and permitted defenses that justified the defendant's actions, potentially influencing the jury to nullify the law.

Overall, while judges have a role in guiding and instructing juries, the act of jury nullification itself is a discretionary power held by the jury, and judges cannot directly compel jurors to follow their instructions.

Jury nullification in history

Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict, is when a jury in a criminal trial returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This can occur when the jury believes that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment is too harsh. The tradition of jury nullification is rooted in the British legal system, specifically in a 1670 English case where Quakers were acquitted by a jury of violating a law that permitted religious assemblies only under the Church of England.

In colonial America, juries used jury nullification to protest British rule by acquitting defendants. For example, in 1735, journalist John Peter Zenger was acquitted by a jury that nullified a law criminalizing criticism of public officials. Similarly, colonial juries nullified the Navigation Acts, which would have forced all trade with the colonies to pass through England for taxation.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, some all-white juries in the United States acquitted white defendants accused of murdering black individuals, often due to prevailing racist attitudes. In the lead-up to the American Civil War, abolitionist juries in the North refused to convict individuals for violating the Fugitive Slave Laws, which compelled citizens to assist in the apprehension of runaway slaves.

Jury nullification has also been employed in cases involving alcohol prohibition and draft evasion during the Vietnam War. During the Prohibition era, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, contributing to the eventual repeal of the 18th Amendment. In more recent times, some juries have refused to convict individuals for marijuana possession, reflecting changing societal attitudes towards drug laws.

While jury nullification can be seen as a way for citizens to push back against unjust laws, it is not without controversy. Some view it as a right, while others argue that it undermines the legal system. There have been instances of individuals being punished for advocating for jury nullification, and it is considered inconsistent with the jury's duty to render a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

Frequently asked questions