Jury nullification Jury nullification is a jury on purpose ignoring evidence or refusing to apply the law as explained in the jury instructions.[1] A jury may feel that the application of the law is unfair, unjust, or immoral in some way[1] or may want to "send a message" about some social issue.[1] Jury nullification is not a legal function of a jury, and it is not usually considered to be consistent with a jury's duty to judge a case on the facts and the law.[1] It is clear that juries have the power to nullify.[2] However, it is another question on if they have the right to nullify.[2] Once the verdict of not guilty is returned, double jeopardy applies and so the defendant cannot be tried again.[2] If a judge learns that a juror intends to nullify the verdict, the judge has the right to remove that juror.[2] Typically, jurors are not told by the court that they have the power to nullify. Judges fear that if they told jurors, there would be jury anarchy on their hands, with jurors doing whatever they please. However, jury nullification may provide valuable feedback and is sometimes useful if it is used wisely.[2] HistoryJury nullification goes back to the beginnings of the jury system in England, as established by Magna Carta in 1215.[3] The practice came to the United States during the colonial period. The casethat is thought to be the precedent for jury nullification in America is that of John Peter Zenger in 1735.[3] He was put on trial for seditious libel. Zenger had criticized the governor in his newspaper, The Weekly Journal. Trying everything to ensure a guilty verdict, the governor even had Zenger's lawyers disbarred to prevent him from having legal representation,[4] but the jury refused to convict him and went against the judge's orders.[5] Discriminatory acquittalAlong with a history of jury nullification in the US, there is also a history of discriminatory acquittals. An example of discriminatory acquittal is jury nullification being used to punish female rape victims by allowing their rapists to go free.[6] The same is true of female victims of domestic violence.[6] The "appropriateness" of a female victim's behavior in court can greatly affect a jury will act, according to studies on the subject.[6] Another example is the 1991 case of Rodney King, who was an African-American man who was beat up by police officers on videotape.[7] The jury acquitted the police officers of beating him up even though it had watched the video in court.[7] Arguments againstJury nullification can be a way for a jury to express its own prejudice and bias.[8] Examples include all-white juries enforcing Jim Crow laws on black defendants but letting white defendants who had committed racial crimes against blacks go free.[8] Also, it can seem unfair to allow one defendant to go free for committing the same crime if another defendant is convicted just because one jury decides to nullify the law.[8] That challenges the concept of equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1895 decision Sparf v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that judges did not have to tell jurors about jury nullification.[9] The decision did not say judges could not tell jurors about nullification or that jurors did not have that power.[9] That led to the now-common practice of judges in the US penalizing defense attorneys who try to present a nullification argument in any way.[9] Arguments forWhen a jury lets guilty people go free, it is called jury nullification. When a prosecutor decides not to charge a guilty person of a crime, it is called "prosecutorial discretion."[10] Prosecutors are legal professionals, but jury members are not.[10] However, prosecutors are also politicians and may make politically-motivated decisions or be corrupt.[10] Judges often instruct a jury to return a verdict based on the merits of the case, not the merits of the law,[11] but one argument is that juries have a responsibility to decide if they think the law is wrong in a particular case.[11] People who overreact when seeing someone commit a crime may be guilty of a crime themselves.[11] For example, if a child is killed by a drunk driver, and the father then kills the drunk driver, the father may be guilty of murder according to the law.[11] The same is true in many jurisdictions if a man seeing someone sexually assaulting his wife or daughter and beats the attacker to death.[11] A jury is made up of people who live in a community and can decide to let someone go free if it considers it safe to do so.[11] Related pagesReferences
|
