What does “jury nullification” mean? How important is it, and why have most people never heard of it?
Most people that I talk to have never heard of the phrase “jury nullification.” Some people who have heard of it assume that it has something to do with a “hung jury,” (i.e., a jury that was unable to reach a unanimous verdict). Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “not guilty” in a case because they do not agree with the involved law(s) in some way. The jury may very well believe that the defendant is, in fact, guilty of breaking the law that s/he is accused of breaking, but the jury cannot in good conscience convict the defendant since they don't agree with the law (and/or its application and/or the associated penalty).
An example from the days of slavery might be a jury refusing to vote guilty in a case involving someone who assisted a runaway slave. From the standpoint of the jury, it is not a matter of whether or not the individual broke the law as written. It is a matter of whether they agree with the law in the first place. An example from a more recent time might have something to do with alcohol prohibition. Again, a defendant may have broken the law as written and as it existed at the time, but the jury may not agree with the law. A present-day example might be related to a defendant in a drug case. The jury may not have any doubts as to the guilt of the defendant per the law as written, but they may feel that the law is completely unjust and/or that the associated penalty is far too harsh. A simple example might be that of a person who was charged with possession of enough marijuana to warrant a minimum prison sentence. The jury may choose to find the defendant not guilty if they feel that a more appropriate punishment would be a small fine (if anything). Again, the jury may very well acknowledge that the defendant is guilty of breaking the law as written.
The concept of jury nullification is controversial and complicated. Based on my informal research, there is a great deal of legal ambiguity about the matter. At the end of this article, I list some links for anyone who is interested in researching the matter further. My understanding, though, is that juries have the “power” to nullify in a case, but do not necessarily have the “right” to do so. That sentence is just as confusing to me as it probably is to you.
There is anecdotal evidence that judges will immediately dismiss a prospective juror who even mentions the phrase “jury nullification” and/or who appears to understand the concept. I have also come across anecdotal evidence that judges may threaten to “punish” a prospective juror who attempts or has intentions to disrupt the judicial process by invoking his/her right to nullify. It also seems that judges do not typically inform jurors of their right to nullify, and they may not in fact be required by law to provide this information.
Our justice system seems to have evolved in such a way that the role of jurors is simply that of “fact checkers” and “truth seekers.” It is not their place to question the law or challenge it in any way--at least not in the context of any particular case. Their job is to vote “guilty” or “not guilty” without taking into account their personal opinions on the particular laws and/or punishments involved in a case. The job of the judge is to ensure that the laws and punishments (as they are written and presently exist) are applied appropriately if the jury returns a guilty verdict.
In plain English, courthouses don't want any politics in the courtroom. Is that good or bad? Is it right or wrong? From the standpoint of the government, we can't have a system in which guilty people are allowed to walk free simply because of the political beliefs of jurors. In practice, prospective jurors who express biases against parties in a case and/or against the involved laws will simply be dismissed from jury duty (or at least from the particular case in question). The point of a given court case is to put a defendant on trial—not to put a particular law on trial (e.g., whether or not marijuana should be legal).
From the standpoint of The People, I feel that judges should make it very clear that anyone who does not agree with a particular law (and/or its associated punishment) will not be forced to serve on a case that involves that law or punishment. I also feel that a particular court case is not the best venue for someone to protest a law that s/he feels is unfair. Under our current system, such a person will quickly be dismissed from court, and will accomplish nothing. There are plenty of better opportunities for protesting a law such as putting forth written or verbal protests, and participating in lawful marches and demonstrations. Perhaps the best way for a person to protest a law is to vote for government officials who promise very specifically to change the law as desired, and who present a very detailed plan for how they will go about doing so. I acknowledge that many people have the opposite opinion, and feel as though there is no better opportunity and venue for protesting a controversial law than by serving as a juror and voting "not guilty" in a court case involving the law. This is far easier said than done, though, since an individual who does this may be charged with perjury if it is determined that s/he lied during pre-trial questioning in an effort to accomplish his/her personal political agenda.
As with many topics in the book, the point of this section is to call attention to a judicial concept that many readers may not be familiar with, and to present the topic for thought and discussion.
External Links About Jury Nullification (Please contact me with other suggestions)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict
http://fija.org/ (Fully Informed Jury Association)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/07/rethinking-jury-nullification/
https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/jury-nullification/
http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/jury-nullification-when-the-jury-ignores-the-law.html
http://www.jurybox.org/informed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0
http://www.creativeideasforyou.com/jurors_protest.html
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
An example from the days of slavery might be a jury refusing to vote guilty in a case involving someone who assisted a runaway slave. From the standpoint of the jury, it is not a matter of whether or not the individual broke the law as written. It is a matter of whether they agree with the law in the first place. An example from a more recent time might have something to do with alcohol prohibition. Again, a defendant may have broken the law as written and as it existed at the time, but the jury may not agree with the law. A present-day example might be related to a defendant in a drug case. The jury may not have any doubts as to the guilt of the defendant per the law as written, but they may feel that the law is completely unjust and/or that the associated penalty is far too harsh. A simple example might be that of a person who was charged with possession of enough marijuana to warrant a minimum prison sentence. The jury may choose to find the defendant not guilty if they feel that a more appropriate punishment would be a small fine (if anything). Again, the jury may very well acknowledge that the defendant is guilty of breaking the law as written.
The concept of jury nullification is controversial and complicated. Based on my informal research, there is a great deal of legal ambiguity about the matter. At the end of this article, I list some links for anyone who is interested in researching the matter further. My understanding, though, is that juries have the “power” to nullify in a case, but do not necessarily have the “right” to do so. That sentence is just as confusing to me as it probably is to you.
There is anecdotal evidence that judges will immediately dismiss a prospective juror who even mentions the phrase “jury nullification” and/or who appears to understand the concept. I have also come across anecdotal evidence that judges may threaten to “punish” a prospective juror who attempts or has intentions to disrupt the judicial process by invoking his/her right to nullify. It also seems that judges do not typically inform jurors of their right to nullify, and they may not in fact be required by law to provide this information.
Our justice system seems to have evolved in such a way that the role of jurors is simply that of “fact checkers” and “truth seekers.” It is not their place to question the law or challenge it in any way--at least not in the context of any particular case. Their job is to vote “guilty” or “not guilty” without taking into account their personal opinions on the particular laws and/or punishments involved in a case. The job of the judge is to ensure that the laws and punishments (as they are written and presently exist) are applied appropriately if the jury returns a guilty verdict.
In plain English, courthouses don't want any politics in the courtroom. Is that good or bad? Is it right or wrong? From the standpoint of the government, we can't have a system in which guilty people are allowed to walk free simply because of the political beliefs of jurors. In practice, prospective jurors who express biases against parties in a case and/or against the involved laws will simply be dismissed from jury duty (or at least from the particular case in question). The point of a given court case is to put a defendant on trial—not to put a particular law on trial (e.g., whether or not marijuana should be legal).
From the standpoint of The People, I feel that judges should make it very clear that anyone who does not agree with a particular law (and/or its associated punishment) will not be forced to serve on a case that involves that law or punishment. I also feel that a particular court case is not the best venue for someone to protest a law that s/he feels is unfair. Under our current system, such a person will quickly be dismissed from court, and will accomplish nothing. There are plenty of better opportunities for protesting a law such as putting forth written or verbal protests, and participating in lawful marches and demonstrations. Perhaps the best way for a person to protest a law is to vote for government officials who promise very specifically to change the law as desired, and who present a very detailed plan for how they will go about doing so. I acknowledge that many people have the opposite opinion, and feel as though there is no better opportunity and venue for protesting a controversial law than by serving as a juror and voting "not guilty" in a court case involving the law. This is far easier said than done, though, since an individual who does this may be charged with perjury if it is determined that s/he lied during pre-trial questioning in an effort to accomplish his/her personal political agenda.
As with many topics in the book, the point of this section is to call attention to a judicial concept that many readers may not be familiar with, and to present the topic for thought and discussion.
External Links About Jury Nullification (Please contact me with other suggestions)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict
http://fija.org/ (Fully Informed Jury Association)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/07/rethinking-jury-nullification/
https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/jury-nullification/
http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/jury-nullification-when-the-jury-ignores-the-law.html
http://www.jurybox.org/informed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0
http://www.creativeideasforyou.com/jurors_protest.html
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents