Cecily Zamora
Jury nullification is a term used to describe when a jury returns a not guilty verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This is often done when jurors feel the law itself is unjust or has been poorly applied to the case. While some view jury nullification as a violation of the right to a jury trial, others argue that a jury should be charged with judging both the law and the facts of the case. In the United States, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits or permits jury nullification, and it has been used throughout history to oppose laws that jurors perceive as unjust, such as those prohibiting alcohol during the Prohibition era or criminalizing draft evasion during the Vietnam War. Today, discussions of jury nullification often center on drug laws, which some consider unjust or discriminatory. While defense attorneys cannot explicitly mention jury nullification in court, it remains a powerful tool for jurors to express their opposition to laws they believe are unfair or oppressive.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Other names | Jury equity, perverse verdict |
| Occurrence | When a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law |
| Reasons | Belief that the law is unjust, punishment is too harsh, or general frustration with the justice system |
| History | Used to oppose laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition laws, and draft evasion during the Vietnam War |
| Ethical considerations | Tension between democratic self-government and integrity |
| Prosecution perspective | Prosecutors cannot seek nullification due to the presumption of innocence |
| Jury instructions | Judges may penalize those presenting nullification arguments to jurors and declare a mistrial |
| Jury removal | Jurors can be removed if they intend to nullify the law |
| Hung jury | Occurs when jurors cannot agree on a verdict, leading to a mistrial and possible retrial |
| Jury sanctity | Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and their verdict cannot be overturned |
| Jury rights | Some view jury nullification as a right, while others see it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors |
| Jury nullification advocacy | Estimated at 3-4% of all jury trials, with a recent rise in hung juries |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Jury nullification advocacy groups estimate 3-4% of jury trials involve nullification
- Hung juries may be indirect evidence of juries questioning the validity of laws
- Judges may penalise attempts to present a nullification argument and declare a mistrial
- In 2017, a jury was instructed that they cannot substitute their sense of justice for their duty to follow the law
- Jury nullification may occur in civil suits, resulting in a finding of liability or lack thereof
Jury nullification advocacy groups estimate 3-4% of jury trials involve nullification
Jury nullification is a contentious issue in the legal system. It occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, often due to a disagreement with the relevant law. Jury nullification advocacy groups estimate that 3-4% of all jury trials involve nullification. This percentage is based on the rising number of hung juries, which some interpret as juries questioning the validity and fairness of the laws they are tasked with upholding.
The act of jury nullification is not a new phenomenon. It has its roots in colonial America under British law, where juries used their power to protest against the Crown. For instance, in 1649, a jury acquitted John Lilburne, who was charged with seditious libel for publishing articles critical of Oliver Cromwell's regime. The jury was instructed to decide only whether the text had been published, but Lilburne argued for a general verdict, and the jury ultimately judged the law's restraint on speech against the government.
In the 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Clause was passed, requiring citizens to aid in the capture of runaway slaves. Abolitionists used jury nullification to protest this law, refusing to convict people who helped fugitive slaves. Similarly, during Prohibition, some juries refused to convict those who violated the alcohol ban. Jury nullification was also employed during the Vietnam War era, with some protestors, including Benjamin Spock, seeking to nullify draft evasion laws.
Today, discussions surrounding jury nullification often revolve around drug laws, which some deem unjust or discriminatory. For example, in a case involving a man charged with possessing a small amount of marijuana, the judge expressed doubt about seating a jury, as many potential jurors were reluctant to convict due to their views on marijuana enforcement.
While some see jury nullification as a safeguard against wrongful imprisonment and government overreach, others argue it undermines the right to a jury trial and violates the oath sworn by jurors. There is also debate about whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify and whether judges can remove jurors who refuse to apply the law as instructed. Despite these controversies, jury nullification remains a discretionary act, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.
The Physics of Energy: Laws and Creation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Hung juries may be indirect evidence of juries questioning the validity of laws
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even though jurors believe that the defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons for doing so may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Jury nullification has been used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War.
In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center on drug laws, which some consider unjust in principle or because they disproportionately affect certain groups. A recent rise in hung juries has been interpreted as indirect evidence that juries have started to question the validity and fairness of the laws they are tasked with enforcing. For example, in the case of Touray Cornell, a man from Missoula, Montana, who was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana, it was doubted that a jury could be seated due to the number of potential jurors who were skeptical of convicting for such a minor offense.
Hung juries occur when a jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty. While the prosecution may choose to retry the case, the law has effectively been nullified in the trial at hand. In the 1895 case of Sparf v. United States, the US Supreme Court held that a trial judge is not responsible for informing the jury of their right to nullify laws. As a result, it has become common practice for US judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such an argument has been presented.
The issue of jury nullification is controversial, with some viewing it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. In contrast, others argue that the oath's reference to "deliverance" implies the nullification of unjust laws. Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions or to convict defendants who have not broken the law. In recent years, there has been a push to prevent jury nullification, with judges instructing juries that they must follow the law, regardless of their personal beliefs about its fairness.
City Pet Microchipping Laws: Can They Be Repealed?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judges may penalise attempts to present a nullification argument and declare a mistrial
Jury nullification is when a jury in a criminal trial gives a "not guilty" verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. The jury's reasons for doing so may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. While some view jury nullification as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors, others argue that the oath's reference to "deliverance" implies a requirement to nullify unjust laws.
In the United States, there is a precedent for judges penalizing those who attempt to present a nullification argument and declaring a mistrial. In the 1895 case of Sparf v. United States, the US Supreme Court held that a trial judge is not responsible for informing the jury of their right to nullify laws. As a result, it has become common practice for US judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument and to declare a mistrial if such an argument has been made.
The Supreme Court has not recently addressed the issue of jury nullification directly. However, in 2017, a jury was instructed that they could not substitute their sense of justice for their duty to follow the law and that there was "no such thing as valid jury nullification." While the Ninth Circuit overruled part of this instruction, it deemed the error harmless and affirmed the conviction. Additionally, in 2002, South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have permitted criminal defendants to argue for jury nullification.
The main ethical issue with jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that if prosecutors cannot seek nullification, defendants should not be able to either. However, for a prosecutor to nullify a law, they would have to negate the presumption of innocence. As a result, prosecutorial nullification is typically defined as declining to prosecute.
Jury nullification can also occur in civil suits, resulting in a finding of liability or lack thereof. Additionally, it can take a milder form, where a single juror or a small number of jurors can "hang" the jury by maintaining a "not guilty" verdict, resulting in a hung jury and potential mistrial.
Bypassing Congress: Witting Law's Complexities
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Hyperdrama[2 LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71iFNbV3vtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
In 2017, a jury was instructed that they cannot substitute their sense of justice for their duty to follow the law
The concept of jury nullification refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law. In other words, the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law. This can occur because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.
Jury nullification has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws. For example, in the 19th century, juries often nullified alcohol control laws during Prohibition, possibly as often as 60% of the time, because they disagreed with the justice of the law. In the 21st century, discussions of jury nullification often centre on drug laws, which some consider unjust or discriminatory.
In 2017, a jury was instructed that they could not substitute their sense of justice for their duty to follow the law. The exact instruction was as follows:
> "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case."
The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction but overruled the remainder, deeming it a harmless error and affirming the conviction.
Law Firms: Title Agency Roles and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Jury nullification may occur in civil suits, resulting in a finding of liability or lack thereof
Jury nullification is a discretionary act and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even though they believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Jury nullification has been used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War.
Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, resulting in a finding of liability or lack thereof. In civil trials, if the jury renders a "not liable" verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial. Jury nullification in civil suits raises ethical issues, such as the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that prosecutors should not be allowed to seek jury nullification, so defendants should not be allowed to either.
Historically, jury nullification has been used to protest and defy the government. For example, in colonial America, juries used nullification to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. Similarly, in the 1800s, abolitionists refused to convict people under the Fugitive Slave Laws. During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, contributing to the repeal of Prohibition. Jury nullification has also been observed in non-criminal cases, with juries awarding damages in suits against the Crown.
Jury nullification continues to be a topic of discussion, especially regarding drug laws, which some consider unjust or discriminatory. Some view jury nullification as a right, while others see it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors and the right to a jury trial. There are concerns that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions or convict defendants who have not broken the law. Jury nullification can lead to a hung jury, where jurors cannot unanimously agree on a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.
Sponsoring Your Sister-in-Law to Canada: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that the defendant broke the law. This happens because the jurors feel the law itself is unjust or has been poorly applied.
The main ethical issue with jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that prosecutors cannot seek jury nullification, so defendants should not be allowed to either. However, for a prosecutor to nullify a law, they would have to negate the presumption of innocence.
Jury nullification has been used to oppose laws that were perceived as unjust, such as those that penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War. In the 21st century, discussions of jury nullification often centre around drug laws, which some consider to be unjust or discriminatory.
