Jury Ruling: Beyond Law, Fact And Fiction

Jury nullification is a discretionary act that occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, or refuses to apply the law. This can happen because a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts. Jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury and 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. However, it has been argued that jury nullification is an important part of the jury system and a right that jurors should be informed of.

Jury nullification

The concept of jury nullification has its roots in colonial America, where juries used it to protest British rule by acquitting defendants. For example, in the 1670s, a jury acquitted Quakers of violating a law that permitted religious assemblies only under the Church of England. In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford, Chief Justice John Jay instructed the jury that they had the right to judge both the law and the facts of the case, which has been frequently cited in discussions of jury nullification.

There are differing perspectives on jury nullification. Some view it as an important 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. In the United States, jury nullification is not legally sanctioned, and judges instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact" and to apply the evidence to the law without questioning it. However, jury nullification is technically protected by the inability to punish jurors for their verdict and the prohibition on double jeopardy, which prevents the appeal of an acquittal.

The right to a fair trial

In the US, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime was committed. The accused also has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

Despite these rights, the accused can often be treated as criminals before they have had their day in court. For example, through "perp walks", where arrested individuals are paraded through public places so they can be photographed by the media, or by being required to wear measures of restraint that make them appear dangerous or guilty. Other ways in which the right to a fair trial can be undermined include mass surveillance, the use of artificial intelligence to profile people, coercive policing practices, and pre-trial detention.

Jury nullification is another factor that can impact the right to a fair trial. This is 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 is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury and is considered inconsistent with their duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. However, it is technically a discretionary act, and juries have an absolute right to return any verdict they choose. In some cases, jury nullification has been used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that penalised runaway slaves or prohibited alcohol during Prohibition. In other cases, juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

Historical basis

The historical basis of jury nullification can be traced back to colonial America under British law. In 1670, a jury acquitted Quakers who were on trial for violating a law that permitted religious assemblies only under the Church of England. This was one of the earliest examples of a jury ruling contrary to the law.

In the American Colonies, the first jury trial took place in 1630 when John Billington was accused of murdering fellow Mayflower colonist John Newcomin. The jury found Billington guilty of "willful murder by plain and notorious evidence," and he was subsequently executed by hanging.

Another notable case of jury nullification occurred in 1681 when a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. In 1688, a jury acquitted the Seven Bishops of the Church of England of seditious libel. Juries continued to act in defiance of the Crown, even in non-criminal cases. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded significant damages to John Wilkes and John Entick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the Crown's messengers.

Jury nullification was also used to protest British rule in colonial America. Juries would acquit defendants to show their opposition to British laws. For example, in the 1800s, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Clause, which compelled citizens to assist in the apprehension of runaway slaves. However, some abolitionists used jury nullification to refuse to convict people under these laws.

In modern times, jury nullification continues to be a controversial topic. While some view it as a right, others argue that it has no place in a society committed to the rule of law. There have been court rulings and legal precedents set to address the issue of jury nullification, but it remains a complex and evolving aspect of the legal system.

Limits of the court

The court has limits on its powers, and the jury is an essential component of the judicial process. There are two types of juries: petit juries, or trial juries, and grand juries. Petit juries decide on both criminal and civil cases, while grand juries focus on preliminary criminal matters, assessing if there is sufficient evidence to put an individual on trial.

The jury's primary role is to decide on the facts of a case, while the judge determines the law. However, in some jurisdictions, juries have the power of jury nullification, where they can effectively disregard the law and reach a verdict based on their sense of justice, morality, or fairness. This can occur when a jury believes a law to be unjust or that exigent circumstances justify a defendant's actions. Jury nullification has its roots in colonial America, where juries used it to protest against the British.

Despite this historical basis, jury nullification is not legally sanctioned. It is considered inconsistent with a jury's duty to base its verdict solely on the law and facts of the case. In the United States, judges instruct juries that they do not have the right to engage in jury nullification and must follow the law as given to them. In some cases, jurors who intend to nullify the law have been removed.

While jury nullification can lead to acquittals, it is not without limits. The prosecution can appeal acquittals on grounds of errors of law. Additionally, jury nullification is not applicable in all jurisdictions, and the Supreme Court has indicated that it is the duty of the presiding justice to try to prevent it.

Jury's sense of justice

Jury nullification refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the 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. Jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. However, jury nullification has a historical basis, with its roots in the British legal system.

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. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

Jury nullification can occur when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written or believe that the law shouldn't be applied in the case. For example, in cases involving drug possession, some jurors refuse to convict because they believe in drug legalization or feel that drug laws are discriminatory. Jury nullification can also occur when a jury convicts a defendant despite the evidence showing that the defendant did not break any laws, such as in cases involving sex crimes against white women in the post-civil war South, where all-white juries routinely convicted Black defendants despite minimal evidence.

While jury nullification is not officially recognized as a valid concept, it persists due to certain idiosyncrasies in the legal system designed to protect the jury process. The lack of requirement for jurors to provide reasons for their verdict and the limitation on courts' ability to inquire into jurors' motivations contribute to the occurrence of jury nullification.

Frequently asked questions