Cecily Zamora
Jury nullification is a term used to describe the discretionary act of a jury returning a not guilty verdict despite believing that the defendant has broken the law. This phenomenon, also known as jury equity in the United Kingdom, has a long history, including its use by abolitionists in the 1800s to protest the Fugitive Slave Act. While some view jury nullification as a violation of the right to a jury trial, others argue that a jury has the right to judge both law and fact. The practice has been used in various contexts, including civil suits and criminal trials, and has even influenced Scotland's three-verdict system. Despite its controversial nature, jury nullification highlights the tension between democratic self-government and integrity, with some arguing that it serves as a powerful tool for the public to oppose unjust laws.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Jury nullification, jury equity, or perverse verdict |
| Definition | When a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law |
| History | Used in colonial America to protest British rule and in the 1800s to oppose the Fugitive Slave Act |
| Examples | Used during Prohibition to oppose alcohol bans, during the Vietnam War to oppose draft evasion laws, and in modern drug cases |
| Legality | Not legally sanctioned; some courts have ruled against it, but it is still practised |
| Ethical considerations | Tensions between democratic self-government and integrity, and the role of the jury in judging law vs. facts |
| Jury protection | Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overturned |
| Jury instructions | Some courts instruct juries against nullification, but there is debate over whether juries should be informed of their power to nullify |
| Hung juries | Jury nullification can occur when a single juror or a few jurors maintain a "not guilty" verdict, resulting in a hung jury |
| Judge's role | A judge can overturn a guilty verdict but cannot overturn a not guilty verdict |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Jury nullification is not legally sanctioned
Jury nullification is a discretionary act and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered a violation of the right to a jury trial and undermines the law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even though they believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. This can occur because a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected from punishment for their verdicts.
In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while others view the oath as requiring the nullification of unjust laws. 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. Counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. In some cases, individuals have been punished for disseminating information about jury nullification, such as through pamphlets, and were charged with jury tampering.
In California, it was decided that the trial jury did not have the right to refuse to apply the law, and this sentiment has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, in 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction stating that there is no such thing as valid jury nullification. In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors could be removed if they intended to nullify the law.
Jury nullification has a historical basis, with its origin seen in colonial America, where juries used it to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. Another example is the Fugitive Slave Clause, where abolitionists refused to convict people under these laws. Jury nullification has also been used in civil suits, where the verdict is typically a finding of liability or lack of liability rather than guilt or innocence.
Notarizing In-Laws: Georgia Notary's Role
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Jury nullification can be used to oppose unjust laws
Jury nullification is a discretionary act where a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, despite believing that the defendant has broken the law. This act is not legally sanctioned, and counsel is typically not permitted to present the concept to the jury. However, jury nullification can be used to oppose unjust laws, as demonstrated by several historical examples.
During the Prohibition era in the early 20th century, the United States banned the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol. Many citizens viewed these laws as an overreach of government power, leading to widespread disapproval. As a result, juries frequently acquitted individuals charged with violating Prohibition laws, reflecting the public sentiment that the laws were unjust.
Similarly, in the 1800s, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, 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. Jury nullification was also employed during the Vietnam War to oppose laws criminalizing draft evasion.
In Scotland, jury nullification led to the introduction of the three-verdict system, including the options of "proven" and "not proven" in addition to "guilty" and "not guilty". This change occurred after a jury asserted its "ancient right" to judge the entirety of a case, not just the facts, to prevent an unjust outcome.
While jury nullification can be a powerful tool for opposing unjust laws, it is not without controversy. Some view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial and the oath sworn by jurors. There are also concerns that it could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular groups. Additionally, defense attorneys must navigate legal sanctions if they attempt to raise the concept of jury nullification during a trial.
Despite these considerations, jury nullification remains a potential outcome in criminal trials, where jurors use their sense of justice and morality to guide their verdict, acting as a final check against laws they deem unfair.
Local Police vs Federal Laws: Who Has Jurisdiction?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judges cannot overturn a jury's 'not guilty' verdict
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 jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses, and a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned. Jury nullification may occur when jurors believe a defendant has broken the law, but the law itself is unjust, the punishment is too harsh, or the jurors have general frustrations with the criminal justice system.
In the United States, jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, and 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, there is a historical basis for jury nullification, particularly in colonial America, where juries used it to protest against British rule by acquitting defendants. Jury nullification has also been used to oppose laws perceived as unjust, such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the criminalization of draft evasion during the Vietnam War.
While judges can overturn a jury's guilty verdict in certain situations, they cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. This would violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The integrity of the jury system is based on the principle that a person cannot be convicted of a serious crime except by a jury of their peers.
Judges may occasionally intervene to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions, but this is a rare occurrence. In civil cases, the term judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) refers to a judge's ability to overrule a jury's decision and reverse or amend their verdict. However, a judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal, as this would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
Informants: Law Enforcement Officers or Classified Citizens?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Jury nullification may occur in civil suits
Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or a perverse verdict in the United Kingdom, occurs when a jury in a criminal trial returns a "not guilty" verdict, even though they believe the defendant broke the law. This can be due to a belief that the law is unjust, that it has been misapplied, or that the punishment is too harsh. Jury nullification has been used throughout history to oppose laws perceived as unjust, including the Fugitive Slave Act, alcohol prohibition laws, and draft evasion criminalization during the Vietnam War.
While jury nullification most commonly occurs in criminal trials, it can also occur in civil suits. In civil cases, the verdict typically involves a finding of liability or lack of liability rather than guilt or innocence. The main ethical debate surrounding jury nullification in civil suits is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. Some argue that since prosecutors cannot seek jury nullification, defendants should not be allowed to do so either. However, prosecutorial nullification would require negating the presumption of innocence, which is generally defined as declining to prosecute.
Jury nullification has been a topic of discussion in the 21st century, particularly regarding drug laws that many consider unjust or disproportionately impacting certain groups. It is estimated that 3-4% of jury trials involve nullification, and the recent rise in hung juries may indicate that juries are increasingly considering the validity and fairness of the laws they are tasked with enforcing.
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 the nullification of unjust laws. There is a historical basis for jury nullification, dating back to colonial America, where juries used it to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. Jury nullification has also been used to introduce the "'not proven' verdict in Scotland, providing an alternative to the "proven" or "not proven" verdicts, which were seen as inadequate in certain cases.
Despite its historical usage and potential benefits, jury nullification is not without controversy. Some argue that it undermines the rule of law and can be abused by biased juries to acquit defendants in cases involving civil rights abuses or violence against socially unpopular factions. Judges retain the right to decide sentences and override guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. Additionally, in California, it was ruled that jurors intending to nullify the law could be dismissed, and jurors are required to inform the judge if a fellow juror appears biased towards nullifying a law they dislike.
Trump's Legal Woes: State Arrest Possible?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Hyperdrama[2 LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71iFNbV3vtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Jury nullification can be used in self-defence cases
Jury nullification is a discretionary act that occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. This can be due to a belief that the law is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, or that the punishment is too harsh. Jury nullification has been used throughout history to oppose unjust laws, such as those penalizing runaway slaves, prohibiting alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalizing draft evasion during the Vietnam War.
While jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function, it is a logical consequence of two rules: jurors cannot be punished for incorrect verdicts, and a defendant who is acquitted cannot usually be tried again for the same offence. This means that a jury verdict that goes against the letter of the law in a particular case can effectively invalidate that law. For example, in Scotland, jury nullification led to the introduction of the "not proven" verdict, which has since been favoured over "not guilty" in some cases.
In the United States, there is a historical basis for jury nullification, with colonial juries using it to protest against the British by acquitting defendants. During the 19th century, abolitionist juries refused to convict under the Fugitive Slave Act, and during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws. In the 20th century, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering black people, and during the Vietnam War, protestors sought jury nullification for draft evasion charges.
While some view jury nullification as a right, others see it as a violation of the oath sworn by jurors and the right to a jury trial. There is also a concern that nullification could be used to permit violence against unpopular groups. In some cases, people have been punished for disseminating information about jury nullification, and in others, jurors intending to nullify the law have been removed.
Gay Couples and Common Law Marriage: What's the Verdict?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Jury nullification is when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict despite believing that the defendant has broken the law. This is done because the jury feels the law itself is unjust or has been poorly applied.
Jury nullification is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered a violation of the oath sworn by jurors. However, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overturned, and jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.
No, if a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, the judge cannot overturn it and convict the defendant.
During the Prohibition era in the United States, juries frequently acquitted individuals charged with violating alcohol laws, reflecting public sentiment that these laws were unjust. Jury nullification has also been used in cases involving self-defence, assisted suicide, and technical violations.
