The Jury's Power: Can They Override Law?

Jury nullification is a highly debated topic, with some viewing 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. It occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This can happen when a juror or jurors feel that the law in question is unjust or that exigent circumstances justified the defendant's actions. Jury nullification has a long history in the US, with some arguing that it predates the Constitution, and has been used in various contexts, from alcohol prohibition to the Vietnam War. While it is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, it serves as a check against malicious prosecution and allows jurors to act according to their sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is not legally sanctioned

Jury nullification is a highly contentious issue, with some people considering it an important safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. On the other hand, others see it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. 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 happens because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.

Despite its historical basis, 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. Judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact", determining the veracity and weight of the evidence presented, and applying it to the law as explained by the judge. In California, Judge Jan Goldsmith asserted that the trial jury did not have the right to refuse to apply the law, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court case Kleinman v. United States. Similarly, in United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors could be removed if they intended to nullify the law.

The issue of jury nullification has sparked debate about the role and basis of juries in the legal system. Some view it as a discretionary act, while others see it as a violation of the jury's duty. In modern Western legal systems, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and attorneys to make fair and dispassionate evaluations of the evidence, without allowing sympathy to influence their decisions. This instruction is criticized by advocates of jury nullification, who argue for the jury's right to judge both the law and the facts of a case.

The practice of jury nullification has a long history, dating back to the 12th century when common law courts in England began using juries composed of "laymen" from the local community. The Magna Carta of 1215 recognized the general power of juries to decide on verdicts, stating that no free man shall be imprisoned or deprived of his liberties without "the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." This marked a shift towards using juries as a means of dispute resolution, providing legitimacy to legal decisions.

The jury's power to nullify predates the US Constitution

The concept of jury nullification—a jury's discretionary power to reject evidence or refuse to apply the law—predates the US Constitution. Jury nullification has its roots 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.

The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was recognised in the English Magna Carta of 1215, which stated that "no free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

In colonial America, juries used jury nullification to protest British rule by acquitting defendants. For example, in 1649, a jury acquitted John Lilburne, who had been charged with seditious libel for publishing articles critical of Oliver Cromwell's regime. Lilburne argued that the jury should give a general verdict and judge whether the law's restraint on speech against the government was just.

In the 1800s, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Clause, which compelled citizens to assist law enforcement in apprehending runaway slaves. Abolitionists used jury nullification to protest this law and refused to convict people under these laws. Similarly, during Prohibition, juries refused to convict defendants under laws prohibiting alcohol.

Today, jury nullification continues to be a source of debate in the United States. Some view it as an important safeguard, while others argue that it undermines the rule of law. There are differing opinions on whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify and whether judges can remove or punish jurors who intend to nullify the law.

Judges can remove jurors intending to nullify

Jury nullification is a contentious issue in the United States, 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. 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 happen because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.

Judges have the authority to remove jurors who intend to nullify the law. In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors could be dismissed if there is evidence of their intent to nullify. This ruling affirmed the power of courts to refuse to allow juries to be instructed on jury nullification. Additionally, in some states, jurors who do not agree to accept the rulings and instructions provided by the judge during voir dire are likely to be struck from the panel.

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. Juries in colonial America used jury nullification to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. Similarly, in the 1800s, abolitionists refused to convict people under the Fugitive Slave Laws, which compelled citizens to assist in the apprehension of runaway slaves. Over time, these rejections can lead to laws becoming unenforceable or being repealed.

While jury nullification can be seen as a way for jurors to send a message about social issues or act according to their sense of justice, it is not a legally sanctioned function. Judges retain the right to decide sentences and disregard guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. In practice, judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact," applying the evidence to the law as explained by the judge, without questioning the law itself.

Jury nullification can occur in civil suits

Jury nullification is a highly contentious issue, with some people considering it an important safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others see it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the juror's oath. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, even though jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. This is because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.

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. For example, in the 1800s, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Clause, 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 Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, contributing to the eventual repeal of Prohibition.

While jury nullification can occur in civil suits, it 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. In some states, like California, it has been decided that the trial jury does not have the right to refuse to apply the law. Additionally, there is a fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions by convicting defendants who have not broken the law.

The ethics of jury nullification

Jury nullification is a highly contentious issue that has sparked intense debate. It occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, even if they believe the defendant broke the law. This can be due to a range of reasons, such as a belief in the unjustness of the law itself, a sense that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or a perception that the punishment is too harsh. While some view it as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny, others see it as a violation of the right to a jury trial, undermining the law.

One of the main ethical concerns surrounding jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that if prosecutors cannot seek jury nullification, defendants should not be allowed to either. Additionally, jury nullification can be seen as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence. Critics also highlight the potential for abuse, such as in cases of racial injustice, where southern whites who lynched Black people were rarely convicted due to racist biases within the jury.

On the other hand, advocates of jury nullification argue for jury independence and double jeopardy, where jurors may nullify due to empathy for the defendant or disagreement with the criminalization of an action. Jury nullification has a historical basis, particularly in colonial America, where juries used it to protest British rule by acquitting defendants. It has also been used to oppose laws perceived as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act and alcohol prohibition laws.

Jury nullification is not officially recognised in criminal procedure, yet it remains a discretionary act for juries. Judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact", determining the veracity and weight of evidence, but not questioning the law itself. However, the absolute right of juries to return any verdict they choose is protected, and not guilty verdicts cannot be overturned. This complexity surrounding jury nullification continues to fuel ongoing discussions about its ethical implications.

Frequently asked questions